Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard

Welcome — ask about adherence to the neutral point of view in context!

Before posting here, consult the neutral point of view policy page and the FAQ explainer. Also, make sure to discuss the disagreement at the article's talk page. Fringe theories often involve questions about neutral point of view. These should be discussed at the dedicated noticeboard. You must notify any editor who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:NPOVN-notice}} to do so. Additional notes: Consensus is assessed based on the weight of policy-based arguments, not on vote count or sheer size of argument. Consensus in previous discussions does not make policy, but you can generally rely on it. The list of articles where users flagged a point-of-view concern is here. This page is not a forum for discussions unrelated to the neutral point of view. We have a separate noticeboard for concerns about original research (material made up by a Wikipedia editor), and another dedicated noticeboard for questions about contextual reliability of a source. Start a new discussion

Communications from government of India to Wikimedia Foundation regarding content about maps depicting the borders of India

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi all,

As some users may be aware, India (as well as several other countries) has a number of laws making maps that do not match the Indian government’s national border outline illegal. While this has been a known potential issue for many years, in 2023, the Indian government’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) sent the Foundation several direct complaints about specific maps. This has led to them sending an overall list of 81 URLs on the Wikimedia projects (primarily English Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons). In India, MeitY has overall enforcement authority over website hosting companies and has indicated to the Foundation that they would block access to Wikipedia in India if nothing is done in response to their demands.

As is usual for our response to government demands, we explained the community-governance processes for the Wikimedia projects and that content and editorial decisions are made by volunteers. We have been clear throughout our interactions that the Foundation would not perform any changes, nor is there an expectation for the community to do so. MeitY agreed with this and has clarified that their request does not involve deleting any content on the Wikimedia projects.

Instead, they have made two requests to us. One is that we notify users (which we understand to mean editors) about MeitY’s demands, and the second is that notices be added to pages noting where maps do not comply with Indian law. On the second, they also requested a pointer to the official Survey of India map, which they recently agreed to release into the public domain and which was uploaded to Wikimedia Commons.

The Foundation Legal Department’s opinion is that the first request to inform the communities about the notices to the Foundation is reasonable and in line with our transparency principles, and we are therefore making this post.

For the second request, we understand MeitY’s concern to be around readers misinterpreting a map’s depiction of the disputed border. We believe that it may be possible to address some of MeitY’s concerns in line with current content policies, adding language to some image captions mentioning the dispute in normal encyclopedic prose. Where possible, we defer the question of making these changes to community processes and are here to provide transparency on this situation and our perspective on options.

After a manual review of the 81 received URLs, we developed a list of twelve maps of India (on eight pages) where there is both no indication of the border dispute (in the map or caption) and where mention of the dispute may be beneficial in providing due weight in context.

The Wikimedia Foundation stands by the community’s editorial decisions and processes. If the community decides not to take any action, we will inform MeitY of that decision and, in the event Wikipedia is blocked, attempt to challenge it.

Thank you everyone for your time and consideration.  Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Responses

Thank you for bringing this to us; we appreciate the work WMF Legal does.

Some of the maps, where it might be appropriate to include details about the dispute, already appear to depict the location of the disputed border. For example, File:Political map of India EN.svg and File:India location map.svg appears to match commons:File:States of India (Survey of India).pdf, with both of them depicting India's claim? Can you give us more information about MeitY's objections to these maps; do they want us to depict the territory as Indian, rather than merely claimed by India?

For most of the rest, particularly maps like File:Indus river.svg on pages like Astore River and File:IPhone 3G Availability.svg on iPhone I don't think including the fact that India disputes the border would be relevant, and I feel that doing so across the encyclopedia would provide WP:UNDUE emphasis to India's claims; for other countries with disputed borders we don't mention them every time a map involving those borders is shown, and we shouldn't make an exception because India is issuing legal threats.

In regards to the specific proposals presented by MeitY, I think that adding notices is a non-starter, and adding a pointer to the official survey map isn't much more likely to be appropriate or succeed. BilledMammal (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for this well written summary, Jacob (and Legal more generally). It's probably is worth taking a look at each of the map uses that doesn't note the dispute to see if they should be more prominently marked. I can't imagine we will be adding the notices. As to the pointer, again, it would be odd to add that to every single instance of the map (marked as disputed or not), but there may be some cases where it's worth adding to the see also/ext links section. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi BilledMammal. Thank you for your comments. We understand MeitY’s concerns to be focused on noting that the territory is disputed, not to portray the territory as undisputed in their favor. Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. However, that does mean I don't understand their objection to some of these maps where that already appears to have been done. BilledMammal (talk) 23:32, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

The difference in list size between "81 URLs" and the list above does suggest that...quite a few of them will be flawed, even with the most generous of interpretations. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

If they want the disputes to be noted rather than removed entirely, why is Pakistan on this list? The light green part is land that is claimed by both countries – does India want us to ignore Pakistan's claim?

Also, and more to the general point, what would we do if we received a similar complaint from the government of Pakistan? Or Bhutan? Or China? I'm concerned that this sets a very dangerous precedent. By all means we should be going through these articles to make sure they are accurate and well-represented, but we should not be bending over backward to placate an overzealous government. – bradv 23:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Bradv, thanks for your comment! In the interest of transparency, we thought it necessary to bring this to the attention of the community. I want to clarify that we are not proposing any specific changes; rather, we’re hoping to communicate our understanding of the situation for consideration by the community. I think the standard you articulated: “By all means we should be going through these articles to make sure they are accurate and well-represented, but we should not be bending over backward to placate an overzealous government” is a great way to review this. Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jrogers (WMF). For full transparency, can you post redacted copies of these several communications from the Government of India's MeitY related to this issue and the Wikimedia Foundation's redacted written response(s) thus far?

Also, have you contacted the Internet Archive about a recent removal of a Public Domain book with a 1868 map of India by an India-based uploader? They might share if there has been a request from MeitY as well. Thanks,

-- Ooligan (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

On this map it's unclear to me what the difference is between "Pakistani territory claimed by India" and "Indian territory claimed by Pakistan". Current control? I feel like this phrasing is not sufficiently precise in that case. Loki (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It's the difference between the land that India actually controls and the land they claim. The red line is the de facto border, the hashed areas are what India and Pakistan respectively claim. (Same on the east side of the mpa, with China). Obviously it wouldn't be NPOV of us to draw these maps according to either country's wishes, but it would be perfectly reasonable for us to colour the claims differently and make note of the dispute (as we do on most of these articles). – bradv 00:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest changing it to "Pakistan-controlled territory claimed by India". Unfortunately, this overflows the existing legend, so it will take more significant editing of the SVG to fix. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. Loki (talk) 04:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I concur, "X territory claimed by Y" is at best confusing and at worst it implies actual ownership aligns with the current line of control. "X-controlled territory claimed by Y" would work, but if space is an issue then I believe it can be shortened to "territory claimed by Y" without altering the meaning or understandability. The line of control itself implies the territory is claimed and controlled by the other side. Alsee (talk) 06:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if when citing the desire for transparency that the WMF could give a fuller picture of this. It is presented here as a new incident which was merely a "known potential issue" in the past, however it includes Bhutan–India relations for which we have news reports of previous official communication to the WMF. It would be clarifying to know what specifically the WMF means by "the border dispute" in this request to the community. As the WMF has carried out a manual review, it would also be appreciated to know what considerations were taken when doing so. For example, did this review take a similar perspective that it would be "beneficial in providing due weight in context" to add into the maps and captions notes about related disputes? It was particularly eye-catching to see China–India relations included in the manually reviewed list of pages "where mention of the dispute may be beneficial". I hope the WMF takes another look at this situation. CMD (talk) 00:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The complaint about China–India relations is interesting, as both of the India/China maps on that page seem to be drawn in India's favour, with no mention of China's claim. (It doesn't mention India's claim on Pakistan's land either, but if we're going to fix one we're going to fix the other too.) – bradv 00:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't see a way this can be resolved that does not involve Wikipedia being blocked in India. Deleting all maps that show the territory that India actually controls is simply too fundamental a compromise of the neutral point of view to seriously stomach. The only way I could seriously see this being resolved without Wikipedia being blocked is having the maps replaced with one's the Indian government approves of only when viewed from India, like Google maps does it, but the technical implementation of that seems challenging. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:24, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

The only way I could seriously see this being resolved without Wikipedia being blocked is having the maps replaced with one's the Indian government approves of only when viewed from India, like Google maps does it, but the technical implementation of that seems challenging. I believe the technical implementation already exists (it is often used for banners), but I would oppose that as an NPOV violation.

However, what may be acceptable is for us to include a banner on those pages, viewable only in India, that reads something along the lines of "The Indian government has required us to inform you that the maps included in this article reflect control, and do not reflect India's claimed territory". However, I don't think that would be necessary - I doubt India will actually block Wikipedia. BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

This sounds like a headache, but not for us. I'd say the less the community engages with this sort of Dr. Evil style blackmail the better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

As someone who's often critical of the WMF, I have to give props for how this is being handled. If the government of India has an issue with our content, they are more than welcome to make a post here at the neutral point of view noticeboard like anyone else. If the government of India blunders its way into blocking Wikipedia over a few maps, then I hope the people of India will loudly oppose such a decision and see it quickly reversed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:09, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Could we just create a new template warning people that a given map might be illegal in some countries like we already have for communist symbolism etc? User1042💬✒️ 12:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

If we do, it would be better to do alongside other countries with similar laws. CMD (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Not all of them, in my opinion. I believe that the Russian territorial claims against Ukraine (including Crimea) are just as good as ISIL's in the context of widely documented war crimes of such exceptional intensity, that now the ICC has an arrest warrant for Putin: in said case, there is no case for a territorial dispute warning template. --Minoa (talk) 07:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I meant a universal template, like we have for communist symbolism. User1042💬✒️ 20:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree thanks for this thoughtful summary and reasonable stance by the WMF. I suggest we review it and discuss ad nauseum simply to prove that we can before taking any action, IF any is taken. Andre🚐 17:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I remember an earlier similar thing with some media coverage[1], it was discussed at Talk:Bhutan–India relations and other places. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Notified: c:Commons:Village pump. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

• Inquiry is the complaint at Indien about File:Political map of India EN.svg (where the in-image caption is perhaps less clear than desired, but seems broadly fair), or other images such as File:South Asian Language Families.png (which makes no attempt to convey a disputed border). Walt Yoder (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  Good question, thanks for flagging! I believe it's both, and I think that presents a good example of the varying quality of the list they sent us, given that one is at least related to the political borders while the other is quite clearly different. Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  If they refuse to say what they object to and/or want, I must assume they are hoping Wikipedia will self-censor to maximalist demands (that is, have maps that show all India's claimed territory as indisputably Indian) -- which is unreasonable and will not get consensus. At a policy level, I don't think there is anything that can be done other than a talk-page banner (which I will support if somebody else proposes it). Walt Yoder (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

• Kommentar Due to the way Wikipedia works, it will always contain errors. That's not something we can change. I'm not inclined to start caving in to demands from this government or that. I'm more sympathetic to India than I am to (say) Russia, which doubtless thinks we are breaking numerous laws with our coverage of the war. But I think we have to draw a line in the sand here. Adoring nanny (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

  Also worth mention is India's Democratic backsliding. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia will always contain errors, especially if the errors can be verified and the facts can't. That's following our policies and guidelines. But that doesn't excuse, for me, our obligation to try to get things right nor does it excuse our obligation to uphold a neutral point of view. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Convenience break

• @Jrogers (WMF): Other issues aside: Having File:States of India (Survey of India).pdf is good, but have the govt. of India released it as an SVG, or better as a data file? If not, please could you ask your contact there to do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

  Noted. We can try, though the Survey of India themselves have been the slowest responding part (like, it might take them months to respond to a request). If anyone want to make it into an SVG, please feel free to do so. Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

  @Jrogers (WMF) @Pigsonthewing: I've converted the PDF to File:States of India (Survey of India).svg, but it's not great quality because of the limitations of the original file. If anyone can create a better version, I'm absolutely fine with mine being uploaded over. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:29, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

• I presume there is no problem about detecting the country of origin when nothing like VPN is being used. For those cases I fully support a country specific banner appearing for specific pages when they are displayed. Plus an option for people to display all banners if they wish. And if Russia wants such a banner for bits of Ukraine being displayed in Russia, well I've no objection and we can all see what they are saying if we want. NadVolum (talk) 08:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
• I don't think a reader-facing warning is appropriate here. No objections to someone making a template about this as information, and dropping it on associated talk pages - then future editors can decide if they want to adjust things or not. In some cases, something may be inaccurate and this could spurn legitimate improvements. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

  We would also need a new Commons template similar to c:Template:Georgian boundaries (for misprepresentations of Georgia's borders) to be attached to Commons files. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:15, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

  I concur with xaosflux's perspective on this. I don't believe reader-facing changes should be implemented but when appropriate I don't see issues with editor-facing notices/templates that garner community support here. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

• We should seek always to act reasonably, and where we think the edit request is reasonable we should act upon it. In my view, border disputes are usually notable, and I think should be communicated in a proportionate manner (e.g. outlining or shading territory on a map, plus a key). It would not be proportionate to have a big flashy warning about a map being illegal in India. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
• Do nothing, oppose warning/banner WP:Risk disclaimer already states "Please be aware that any information you may find in Wikipedia may be inaccurate, misleading, dangerous, unethical, or illegal" - why would a country-specific banner even be necessary? Wikipedia has a track record of ignoring petulant bullshit from authoritarian states, no reason for this to change now. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 04:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• No banner Per Satellizer. And I'd like to see 'em try and block access to Wikimedia (which...is what their mortal enemy Pakistan did briefly in February. Heavy Water (talk • contribs) 22:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support tailored notices I don't like pandering to nationalist interests or censorship at all, but the fact is there will be cases where Wikipedia isn't being neutral, or possibly even correct. The easiest way to avoid angering governments which practice censorship (which in reality is virtually all governments) is to say something to the effect that there are such disputes and the position of the country from which one is viewing Wikipedia may be different than what is represented. Maybe something like Wikipedia contains user-generated content and [national borders depicted on this page] may not match the official position of [the Indian government]. No harm done. If we can preserve access to Wikipedia for millions or billions of people by doing so, that is a very small price. This would not need to be done for governments which don't even give us the chance. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Do nothing, oppose notice. I've thought about it and I don't think we should normalize governments looking for a way to add warnings to Wikipedia. Andre🚐 03:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose banners and tailored notices. The risk disclaimer describes what exactly the Indian government found - that it may be illegal. Almost every piece of content in this project can be deemed illegal according to one or the other. We put the disclaimer at the bottom of every page just for that. Anyone who thinks some content is erroneous are welcome to edit - which is of course our daily business here. Re the 81 urls, I don't see anything the WMF should do in particular. — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 15:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
• Do nothing, oppose banners and tailored notices per se - I agree that we are stepping onto a very slippery slope once we give in to the entreaties of one particular government, no matter how politely requested and how reasonable the negotiations. There are almost 200 countries in the world, many of which have border conflicts with their neighbors. Of course, most of these are very low-level and are unlikely to lead to demands to WMF and the various Wikipedias, but I can think of a least a dozen that are festering and could very well result in the same kind of requests that India is now making. It would be impossible to please all parties if we start on that path, so the only reasonable course of action is to continue doing exactly what we are doing, using the best possible sources and citing everything with reference to them; in other words, our normal commitment to neutrality. If a country such as India cuts off access to WMF entities for their citizens, that would be a blow, not to us so much as to those people, and it is not too much to think that in democratic countries such decisions would be overturned by public response. In any event, our choice is clear, at least to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• To clarify a bit: if an area on a map is disputed between two countries, that should be indicated on the map itself, and in the caption, especially if it's not indicated on the map - but as a matter of fact, supported by refs, not as a matter of policy, whether set by the community or the Foundation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would agree to this request because it's asking us to do the right thing. Where borders are disputed, we should be informing readers of this fact, without taking a stance about which version of the border is correct.—S Marshall T/C 09:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• For the sake of NPOV, if we act to acknowledge India's objections to a map we ought to solicit and note the viewpoint of the entity on the other side of the border in question. Cabayi (talk) 10:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• This is a very odd venue for a discussion where the goal was for the "community" was to be consulted... Not sure how many Wikipedians have the NPOV noticeboard page on their watchlist, and I only learned about it through asking a question in the Signpost. Suggest moving to the village pump and also prasing it as an RFC.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  • There is already a note on WP:CENT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
• I think it is a reasonable request to include the fact that there is a border dispute in cases where relevant. Afterall this isn't false and only conveys a WP:NPOV to the readers. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 18:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

  In isolation that might be a reasonable request, but it doesn't gel with the list of articles and images presented in the master list and in the manual list, many of which already do this. CMD (talk) 15:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Question for Legal @Jrogers (WMF): would adding templates similar to c:Template:Georgian boundaries oder c:Template:Chinese boundaries on the description pages of the affected files satisfy MeitY's request? – Teratix ₵ 14:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  Good question. I think the answer is a solid maybe. I think in context of the way that Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons hosts files, one could make a compelling argument that this satisfies their request for notification about the issue to users. On the other hand, based on my conversations with them so far, they have been very focused on the specific URLs they identified and changes to the file pages require a clickthrough. This did come up on Commons as well and my recommendation there is the same I'd make here: it's helpful for us in negotiating, both now and in future, so I'd encourage these kind of filepage warnings if they don't cause other problems. - Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Teratix @Jrogers (WMF) as I noted on Commons, MediaViewer can show small "non-copyright restriction" icons. (Something like a quarter of those URLs were MediaViewer URLs so presumably that's something the ministry cares about.) It's not much but it should be uncontroversial as we already use it for all kinds of images which are illegal in some Western country. Tgr (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• Something seems deeply wrong here. According to these statistics, India, a country of 1.3 billion people, accounts for about 5% of Wikipedia's total pageviews. That's on par with the UK. The outcome of this discussion might play a large part in determining whether or not these users have continuing unimpeded access to Wikipedia. Can you imagine if access to Wikipedia in the UK hinged on the outcome of a discussion like this? There would be dozens if not hundreds of users weighing in within hours. It would be bigger than WP:FRAM. Why is this discussion so comparatively small and slow?

This is not a Russia scenario where the requests are obviously incompatible with neutrality and free access. There's no request to delete content or rewrite it to support India's claims over all others. The request is to note disputed areas on certain maps are, well, disputed and don't reflect India's view. That doesn't seem blatantly unreasonable or contrary to core values. It's true there's problems to be negotiated, but why are some reflexively saying "do nothing" instead of looking for solutions?

Why such a lack of self-awareness about the fact that knowing about and participating in this discussion means we are really, really, really weird people?

Am I missing something here? – Teratix ₵ 15:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

A few things are missed here. Firstly, much of the , content, even in the manual list, already mentions the disputes, so the calls for change here are calls to keep doing what we are already doing. Secondly, "there's no request to...rewrite it to support India's claims over all others" seems wrong at a close reading, especially in light of the first point. There are a few different border disputes, but the only one that seems to be being raised is the one where a mention would reinforce the Indian claims but not others. A key tell is Jrogers wording "where mention of the dispute may be beneficial". They did not reply to my question about what they meant by that, but the most likely reading I can see is that "the dispute" (note the singular) refers to the Kashmir conflict. Highlighting only that dispute, which coincidentally is the major one where India does not control all the territory, would of course push the Government of India's claims relative to its neighbouring governments. Finally, it seems to be missed in many comments that this is not a novel topic of discussion. The community has already discussed such content, in many locations over many many pages, for pretty much Wikipedia's entire existence. The community has felt the need to create WP:ARBIPA, because of having to deal with these issues. To say people are suggesting to "do nothing instead of looking for solutions" is to ignore how much has been done on a topic that has been on the ARBCOM-level radar since at least 2007. CMD (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

much of the content, even in the manual list, already mentions the disputes, so the calls for change here are calls to keep doing what we are already doing If this is already done for "much of the content", why not extend this practice?

The community has already discussed such content, in many locations over many many pages, for pretty much Wikipedia's entire existence. Sure, but an Indian government threat to block Wikipedia entirely seems to be a relevant new context.

Highlighting only that dispute, which coincidentally is the major one where India does not control all the territory, would of course push the Government of India's claims relative to its neighbouring governments. Sure, so might there be another solution? Could we note these neighbouring governments' relevant competing claims as well? – Teratix ₵ 16:03, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

We have standard widespread practices, I merely hedge as I have not reviewed the entirety of the random list of articles. The Indian government threat to block Wikipedia is not new. We could show all disputes everywhere all the time sure, but I doubt that's the desired outcome, it's generally not what external reliable sources do, and it doesn't really help readers. CMD (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• Since we seem to be moving to bold !votes. Use maps indicating disputed territory, where appropriate. Oppose banners et al. Both on any political/diplomatic map, and the regions of India maps, using maps marking the disputed territory as just that would seem appropriate. WMF Legal has thankfully narrowed down the group for consideration from the random, incorrect, and jumbled mix of URLs already. I concur with the views above that if it becomes known that we will add regional banners noting things as disagreeing with the government we're going to get these requests all the bloody time. Nosebagbear (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
• No notices, no changes. Nothing good can come of this. Heck, I find those Georgian and Chinese notices offensive. Thanks for letting me know not to put any maps involving those two countries on Commons, what with the legal threat that they entail. --Golbez (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  In fact, I'm curious, is there a discussion that led to the Georgian and Chinese notices? Was this approved and/or required by foundation legal? --Golbez (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I don't know the history of the Chinese one, but the Georgian one was a unilateral creation by a user with a history of creating/editing maps to show a particular set of borders. CMD (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  If I were still on Commons I'd be starting a discussion about how the mere existence of these templates is an affront to our philosophy, but. Not my circus. --Golbez (talk) 14:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would support the addition of tailored notices explaining that the border is disputed. This is reasonably in line with NPOV as well as what appears to be a precedent set with Georgia and China. It would also help avoid 5% of Wikipedia users being cut off. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  I would disagree that it's in line with NPOV as most NPOV issues don't involve a government threatening imprisonment. --Golbez (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Support template/oppose notices/oppose no change. I disagree strongly with the principle of "If Indian govt has a problem they should approach us via NPOV noticeboard" argument by Thebiguglyalien. By liasing with WMF, Meity is explicitly trying to engage with the Wikipedia community, there's no need to force bureaucracy instead of discussing the arguments themselves. I also dislike CactiStaccingCrane's obvious WP:BAIT, and would recommend users to consider the request on its own merits without trying to draw political non-sequiturs.

On the same note, I am concerned by the number of editors who feel hungry to get Wikipedia banned in India and would rather play a game of chicken instead of policy based discussion.

I think no-change is not the move, simply because some of the request is either already covered by current policy (or can have policy adjusted if the request is reasonable enough). I oppose banners or similar, I support templates to the style of c:Template:Georgian boundaries on non political maps (like File:Indus river.svg). If the map itself is about political borders, current policy dictates we should indicate it on the map already (so no policy change needed).

Disclaimer: I am an Indian editor. (Though that shouldn't matter for WP:INVOLVED or similar).

Soni (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've added a disputed tag for all but one of the files on Commons (and an edit request for that one). I'd support tailored notices per WP:DUE. Frostly (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I've processed your edit request. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I have reverted, as the tag was both incorrect (factual accuracy has not been disputed, POV has) and out of line with what is supported here. It's also blind tagging that makes no sense. This map, this map, and especially this map doesn't show the border dispute? Really? CMD (talk) 01:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
• I think that we should limit our actions to what would be a reasonable response to something like an edit request on a semi-protected page. It's perfectly reasonable for us to make sure that maps that depict disputed borders, anywhere on the planet, are presented in a manner that is encyclopedic and NPOV. So it's appropriate to mark disputed territories as such, taking into account both sides in the border dispute. If somebody like the Indian government makes us aware of a map that they perceive as unfair, we should examine it for NPOV and correct it as we see fit, but not necessarily as they see fit. We seem to be doing this now, and we should make an effort to improve on it whenever a flawed map is brought to our attention. And I'm fine with telling the Indian government that we are doing this. But I'm disinclined to go beyond that, as it would become a sort of special pleading for some geographic areas and not others. So I'd stay away from implementing things like banners or special notices. Imagining a hypothetical in which we get blocked in India, I think WMF Legal could ask them what specific maps are the problem, and we could deal with them as I just described, and India might just accept that as a good response from us, and that could be a sensible way to resolve the conflict. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

• Do nothing, oppose any changes Per Andrevan and DaxServer. If this request is accepted, it may set a dangerous precedent and seriously undermine Wikipedia's neutrality. Quirino il Grande (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Do nothing- no changes in response to this request --

A "slippery slope" as high as Chomolungma.

India under Narendra Modi will not risk the negative political ramifications of blocking Wikipedia or the Commons.wikimedia within India. If this was serious threat leading to blocking Wikipedia and/ or the Commons, it would have come from Minister of External Affairs (India), instead of a new agency looking to score internal political points and potential increased influence within GOI (Government of India). See also, Beyond My Ken above and other "Do nothing" or "no changes" cautionary comments.

India and China have a many decades old boundary dispute. 100's of kilometers of these boundaries were demarcated when Tibet was a defacto independent nation from 1913 to 1951 with the 13th Dalai Lama as the undisputed (among Tibetans) Head of government. This border "dispute" came into question after India's Independence and the forceful annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China in the early 1950's.

So, does the Wikimedia Foundation and it's associated projects want to be used as a tool in these complex international disputes world-wide? India requests this year- China requests next year. Other countries, other years. A handful of disputed maps will become 100's of disputed maps. Objections over current maps will inevitably become objections over historic maps, like this 1864 map [2] published in the United States.

Historical Indo-Chinese border maps will be effected, because current maps are based on previous maps and historic documents.

For example, the modern India-China boundary dispute is partly based on historic boundary maps printed during the three party (Tibet, Great Britain and China) 1914 Simla Accord. This is the historic basis for much of India's Himalayan national boundaries today. Are there any objections by one party to this agreement- the Central Tibetan Administration and the Nobel Peace Prize laureate, the 14th Dalai Lama, (since 1959 is still a refugee in India) about India's and China's boundaries? Are there any objections by the second party to this agreement, United Kingdom? Or are there any objections by the third party to this agreement, China? This "slippery slope" example illustrates that "What's past is prologue" here memorialized [3] in front of the United States National Archives and Records Administration." "Say cheese"- few smiles in this rare 1913 photograph of the three party (Tibetan, British, Chinese) Simla Accord boundary negotiators posing here:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Simla_Conference_1913.jpg

Many countries have border disputes, but there is only one Wikimedia Foundation. --Ooligan (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• We definitely shouldn't be adding notices to articles or images that governments don't agree with some/all of their content. This request reflects poorly on the Indian Government, which has a track record of seeking to censor international sources on the country. It's a matter for editors of relevant articles to decide what maps to use and how they should be captioned, per usual editing and (if necessary) dispute resolution processes - which have a strong emphasis on encouraging the use of reliable sources and presenting differences in these sources accurately. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
• Defer to Wikimedia Commons, whom I notified earlier in this discussion. They do use legal warning templates[1][2] for some of their images, but it is not consistent. I think it makes sense for them to discuss it among themselves and decide what their strategy should be going forward. The thread I created at their village pump has fizzled out, so perhaps someone (Jrogers (WMF)?) should post the issue to their administrators' noticeboard. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
• In regard to file-pages on Commons or other language wikis, they should be handled by those communities.

  In regard to maps appearing in Wikipedia articles, in general they should show each side's claims in a reasonably clear and unbiased manner. For example File:Political_map_of_India_EN.svg has unclear or misleading descriptors, as discussed above my myself and others. It appears that File:Indus_river.svg fails to show the disputed claims at all. These and other maps should be updated as soon as practical, as soon as anyone finds, creates, or provides an improved map.

  Per WP:General_disclaimer, related disclaimers[4][5][6] and WP:No_disclaimers I oppose inserting "notices" or similar into articles.

  In regard to geolocating readers and trying to serve different article-content to different countries, I do not believe the Wikimedia software supports that capability at this time. I would oppose developing such a capability.

  In regard to the WMF, thank you. It appears that this has been handled quite well.

  In regard to any Indian government employees who might receive this message, we thank you for any content you are willing to share with us and we welcome anyone who points out any error or unclear content in Wikipedia. However for whatever it's worth, anything that sounds like a "threat" or "demand" may slow or discourage action from our community of volunteer editors, and you might want to pass that up to higher ranked officials and politicians. We will firmly ignore any threat or demand may by China or Pakistan to advance their territorial claims against India, and similarly we will ignore any threats or demands made by India. Our goal is to accurately and neutrally present whatever dispute may exist. See Censorship of Wikipedia for an extensive list of countries that have blocked or threatened-to-block Wikipedia, and all the times it has failed or backfired. Not only would such a block diminish educational, economic, and scientific opportunities for Indian citizens, it would prevent Indian citizens from incorporating India's perspectives and interests into our articles. That would undermine India's political, cultural, and international interests on the world stage. We accept India's freedom to do so, and it would sadden us for about 5 minutes. Alsee (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  @Alsee, FYI, "India engineers are helping to keep Wikipedia inclusive"

  https://web.archive.org/web/20220927231652/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/india-engineers-are-helping-to-keep-wikipedia-inclusive/articleshow/93893944.cms

  Quote from August 2022 article from the Times of India-

  "INDIANS LOVE TO WIKI

  Readers in India visit Wikipedia more than 750 million times each month, the fifth highest number of views from any country

  India recently became the second largest English wikipedia contributor country after the US

  Over 65,000 volunteer contributors in India - a fifth of the global number - add, edit, and update articles on Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects every month

  Wikipedias are available in 25 languages spoken in India

  Hindi Wikipedia ranked #55, with 140,000 articles and 575,000 users

  Tamil Wikipedia ranked #61, with 130,000 articles and 179,000 users

  Telugu Wikipedia ranked #81, with 70,000 articles and 99,000 users" --

  Ooligan (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• No Change per Ooligan. Local t/p consensus works fine. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Convenience break 2

• Do nothing in response to any request threatening a block of Wikipedia. Rather, invite the Indian government to participate in the Wikipedia consensus-building process, by making proposals for sourced and neutral qualifiers with respect to any map in a RfC or on individual talk pages. Acceding to this request would incentivize other governments to threaten Wikipedia with blocks to get their way, and it would violate our policy WP:OWN. Our content is decided by editors, not governments. Sandstein 20:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
• Do nothing -- India does not get to tell us what their version of reality is and what is right. Thankfully, Wikimedia servers are hosted in the US and so do not need to comply with these types of laws, as they'd be flatly unconstitutional here. Hopefully the Indian Government will change tact. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
• Support the request by the Indian government in one way. The decision to include or not include notices about disputed maps does not rest in the hands of this board; it rests in the hand of the editors editing any particular article and their discussions on talk page. Wikimedia Foundation should leave a notice on the talk page of each of the shortlisted maps/articles in contention informing the editors of this issue and encouraging them to discuss whether a change is needed or not. Editors here do understand that we cannot dismiss the Indian government's request purely because it's a government request (or under the misunderstanding that we all should stand proud having defied a government). In that light, this should be sent to the articles in question. Thanks, Lourdes 06:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  I wonder if starting a bunch of individual talk page discussions about this would violate the spirit of WP:NOLEGALTHREATS. There are definitely laws we want to comply with, such as copyright, child protection, etc. But it sounds like India has made something illegal that is normally protected under freedom of speech. They may possibly be using legal pressure to try to win a content dispute. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• Weak comment, as I have only read the discussion and not the articles, but we should treat this as we do any other legitimate content debate. The proposer should be irrelevant – why should Wikipedia care if it's the Indian government or one of their 1.4 billion citizens? We care about building the best encyclopedia possible, not that. WP:NLT is worth considering, but we shouldn't deliberately ignore correcting incorrect info because it was mentioned alongside a legal threat, if that's what this is determined to be. From WP:NLT: The aim is to prevent legal threats being posted on Wikipedia, not to keep bad content from being fixed. Admins should encourage an aggrieved user to identify factual errors in the article at issue; a link to Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) may be appropriate. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 00:43, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is odd that the idea that this is somehow an ignored or overlooked issue keeps coming up. This is a very well-known issue, that editors are very familiar with. The question at hand is very well known, the position of the Indian government is very well known, it has been raised many times before. The overall topic has emerged enough times that we have an ARBCOM regime dedicated to the topic area. Talk:India has a related FAQ. This isn't even the first Indian government request on the issue. The only novel item at hand here is the WMF carrying out some sort of manual survey of their own that they have declined to expand on. CMD (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

• What action, if any, was taken related to the 2020 "order" by the Government of India's MeitY against Wikipedia?

  See The Wayback Machine =>

  https://web.archive.org/web/20201203081347/https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-orders-wikipedia-to-remove-link-showing-incorrect-map-of-india-sources/article33238465.ece

  Here is an excerpt:

  "The Ministry of Electronics and IT has issued an order under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000 directing Wikipedia to remove the link, they added. The matter had been flagged by a Twitter user, who highlighted that the Wikipedia page on India-Bhutan relationship had incorrectly depicted the map of Jammu Kashmir, and asked the government to take action. Sources said taking cognizance of the matter, the ministry issued an order on November 27, 2020 directing Wikipedia to remove the map as it violated the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India."

  I requested of @Jrogers (WMF) for a redacted copy(s) of the recent Government of India's communications to the Wikikmedia Foundation, but I have not received a response (see above).

  WMF Legal wrote, "... in 2023, the Indian government’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) sent the Foundation several direct complaints about specific maps." (emphasis added)

  -- Ooligan (talk) 07:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Ooligan, you can see my attempt at improving our maps at Talk:Bhutan–India relations#Current map. I thought we reached a consensus to show the disputed territories, but I see it has since been reverted to the version which does not show the disputed areas at all, which is unfortunate. Our primary response to any legal complaint or threat should be to ensure our content complies with WP:NPOV. – bradv 22:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not censored. Governments especially do not dictate what goes here: our sole job is to build a quality encyclopedia. However, we should err on the side of India in India-China border disputes. Due to modernization, internet access, and likely government efforts, there is a bias towards China in articles involving a Chinese controversy. Chamaemelum (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
• Do nothing: While on the one hand it would seem reasonable to at least put notices of the dispute on the map, at what point do we stop? With the many enclaves and exclaves all over the world where countries have similar claims, no matter how outlandish? With China's claim of the nine-dash line, and its somewhat farcical assertion that any waters where there's a Chinese shipwreck is actually Chinese territorial waters? Do we slap warning labels on maps if Islamic State claims Texas tomorrow? (We do not, after all, I believe, have an official WMF ruling as to what entities get to call themselves nation-states or not.) My inclination is to tell them to block and be damned, and see the Streisand effect at work. Ravenswing 11:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  Comment Wikipedia isn't here to censor information or pander to anyone. I'd be ok with a notice on the talk page "This map/the map in this article does not correspond to the view of the Indian government" or something similar, but we aren't here to start redacting information from the wiki because of a government's request. Putting that in an info bar on the main article page would be distracting.

  Frankly if the Indian gov't wants to play hardball, let them. Blocking wikipedia in the country WILL be noticed there and commented upon. WE can't start censoring certain versions of Wiki for certain countries (unlike what Elon did with twitter for Turkey), we're here for everyone. India being the tech-savvy country it is, I'd expect users to simply get a vpn and still use wikipedia anyway. Oaktree b (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Link to request to Jrogers_(WMF) talk page to post redacted copies of communications.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jrogers_(WMF)#NPOV/Noticeboard#Communications_from_government_of_India_to_WMF

  --

  Ooligan (talk) 00:39, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• No notice: I firmly believe that accommodating the Indian government's request to add tailor-made warnings to captions would create an imbalance of importance in favor of their claim. This could open the floodgates for other countries to do the same, cluttering Wikipedia with subjective warnings that promote their own agendas. Moreover, this request goes against Wikipedia's core principles as it resembles a legal threat and serves as a platform for bolstering their claim. We must remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising, and showcasing. It is an encyclopedia, a reliable source of unbiased information that should remain free from such influences.JETH888 (message) 12:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• Do nothing There is absolutely no justifiable reason to listen to their demands. End of question. :3 F4U (they/it) 00:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Do nothing - it opens a can of worms if we change anything in a way which favours a governmental request. Doesn't matter which government. We have an international audience and an international contributor base; we have a system based on consensus and should respect that, not some external threat. - Sitush (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
• Do nothing. The map concerns the areas called Pakistan-administered Kashmir (Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan) and Chinese-administered Kashmir (Aksai Chin). For decades, the current ruling government of India, Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP), frequently said that they will conquer Pakistan-administered Kashmir and Chinese-administered Kashmir.[7][8][9][10] The opposition has fired back BJP over these empty talks.[11][12] Now after ruling for more than 15 years, with 0 territorial gains and territorial losses under their administration, the BJP has decided to force completely uninvolved parties like Wikipedia to modify the map because BJP is more concerned about propaganda gains rather than the reality. Capitals00 (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• In fairness, I don't have a clear sense at all of what they're objecting to. SportingFlyer T·C 20:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• I don't see that this would be a problem on the Commons side. We already have c:Template:Nazi symbol/en because Nazi symbols are banned in Germany. We could make a template for file descriptions doing similar for Indian law regarding maps. I don't see the images being deleted, because it's not related to copyright, and we don't delete other images just because their use is otherwise restricted in a certain jurisdication. GMG^talk 19:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Update from WMF Legal July 14

Hi everyone, We had a second call with MeitY last week and I wanted to share a short update from it. The main point was good news: we received some greater specificity from them about the sort of information they're looking for. They thought the map at Commons India Naxal affected districts was good and provided the information that they wanted to see to end their complaints. This sort of info including the warning note and the details about the disputed borders obviously wouldn't make sense for many of the links that MeitY sent us and we're still working on trying to help them understand the different types of pages. But for political map files, we at least have confirmation that a page like this would satisfy them and appears to be in line with Commons policy and overall neutral presentation of information. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jrogers (WMF): There is a related post on your talk page, dated July 7, awaiting your response. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Why not? The "do nothing" votes dont seem to be based on anything, really, than "can of worms", "slippery slide", "they wont block us anyway", "block us and see what happens".
Sure, the Indian government isnt going to be banning Wikipedia. That is not, however, a deciding factor on what we should do.
Depicting disputed areas clearly as disputed areas is a clear and obvious change. Not sure why it should not/ can not/ will not be implemented.
As for the slippery slide, we already have notices regarding legal restrictions for several countries, not just for maps but for other restrictions as well. Why should we have different standards for different countries? I dont think there would be issues regarding the technical implementation either.
I agree that our decisions should not be based on what a government tells us to do, but at the same time, just because someone wants to see the change does not imply the change should not be made.
I think the request to clarify the disputed areas is fairly reasonable - and I think we do it poorly as of now - though our implementation may differ slightly with what the request is, depending on our content policies.
I think a similar opinion was echoed by Teratix and others, who correctly pointed out that there is nothing inherently wrong with the proposal, though we may differ on the exact ways in which we implement it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As an addendum, a template has been created on commons as a legal disclaimer for the affected maps [13]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Given the above consensus, the template should probably be deleted on sight if placed anywhere on en.WP. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think commons templates can be used on Wikipedia anyway. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of Islam

Should an article on 'criticism of Islam' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Islam) also include counterviews on criticism of Islam? This seems really strange to me. Also, is this also considered a Wikipedia policy or not? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Adhere_to_policy) It states: “Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance” Does this mean that wikipedia articles about high-profile criminals should also include positive points about them equally? Greengrass7 (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Read WP:NPOV. Follow the sources. Yes, in some cases the answers to criticism are relevant. But your example about the criminal would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE. WP:Criticism is an essay that tries to explain and expand on parts of WP:NPOV. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That article has been a shitshow for a long, long time. Long story short is that there are over a billion Muslims in the world who become very offended at the idea that their religion isnt perfect and wikipedia policy says we have to take their opinion into account. End result is that anytime someone adds legitimate criticism to the Criticism of Islam, Criticism of Muhammad, or Criticism of the Quran pages, dozen of fanatics some swooping in to add some apologetics bullshit about how all criticism is wrong and mistaken.

Basically, if you want to make the article more neutral and accurate, youll have a long battle ahead of you. 2603:7000:CF0:7280:58B:3BD4:1DAB:AEB4 (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That’s not what I’ve seen. Your pov is showing. Doug Weller talk 19:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criticism#Adhere_to_policy]] is an essay, not a policy, and I think the line you point to is not well written. I mean, Hitler liked dogs and Mussolini got the trains to run on time. But, we don’t need WP:FALSEBALANCE. I think that articles like Criticism of (pick your religion) are quite useful. Of course, NPOV demands we do not paint all proclaimed Muslims as terrorists or proclaimed Christians as genocidal (or vice-versa) despite examples in history. And nitpicking ancient texts I think is less than useful in this kind of article as they all contain moral/logical failings by current standards. (Well, not everyone’s standards.) They also contain complete contradictions, like the Bible's old and new testaments and the early and late chapters in the Quran. In articles like this involving religion, I have difficulty seeing how it is useful to include counter arguments as they tend to be nebulous and religious oriented, like god doesn’t need to follow physical laws and it is part of “The Plan” that man cannot understand.</ramble> I think articles like this may benefit from a very brief preamble and closing stating that that the articles are scholarly-based, critical summaries, not meant as balanced views. Apart from this ramble, I agree with Doug that I haven't seen a large problem. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think it is WP:FALSEBALANCE to include Muslims' counter-arguments in the article Criticism of Islam. Objective3000 gives the example of Hitler and Mussolini - but you simply can't compare the world's 1.4 billion Muslims to Hitler or Mussolini. There is no academic basis for wikipedia to compare Islam to Nazism. Instead, academic literature is full of counter-arguments against Criticism of Islam, written by both Muslims and non-Muslims. I strongly feel all these counter arguments must be included as per WP:NPOV.VR _talk 18:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I in no way meant to compare Muslims to Hitler/Mussolini. I was just using a reductio example. I have NOTHING whatsoever against Muslims. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  My view is that "Criticism of..." articles are almost always just POV forks and we shouldn't have them for this very reason. They end up just being a garbage bin for everything negative about a subject. A much better approach would be to for them to become something like "Controversies about..." or "Debates about..." and have a more rounded view of the negatives with the counter-arguments advanced by supporters of the target presented. That's not WP:FALSEBALANCE, it's simply in-scope information. The application of WP:DUE/NPOV is then to give RS opinion (in proportion to prominence) of the validity of the criticism or the counter-argument. DeCausa (talk) 19:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Amhara genocide

An editor is claiming WP:SYNTH and WP:ADVOCACY at Talk:Amhara_genocide#Attention_needed. They also tagged the article as "possible fake". I have reverted the tagging because (a) no evidence was given, (b) the article has went through several forms of review (AfC, AfD, classification) and was accepted, (c) lots of sources using the term "Amhara Genocide" are available. The claim that it is fake seems to be a non-starter (and was rejected in this AfC discussion) I am unfamiliar with the topic, maybe someone more knowledgeable regarding the issue can take a look into whether or not there are neutrality issues. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with @Random person no 362478479. The article had been discussed thoroughly by experienced wikipedians and rated as B first and now C with recommendationsn to improve some disputed and potential Original research contents. Unfortunately, due to the ongoing ethnic division in Ethiopia, articles that discuss ethnic violence are constantly nominated for either deletion or endless tags are added to them from opposing parties (ethnic groups). Bottom line is that the article has more than adequate sources that discuss "genocide" directly to meet the WP:COMMONNAME requirement to say the least.Petra0922 (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I can only find 18 sources that specifically use the term "Amhara genocide" several of which seem to be critical of the concept. For example "The war in Tigray (2020–2021): Dictated truths, irredentism and déja vu" by M Labziné in the Routledge Handbook of the Horn of Africa states: diaspora-based activists and the National Movement of the Amhara (NaMA, a political party founded in June 2018) crafted and imposed the narrative of the ‘Amhara genocide. While "Proxy Wars in the Horn of Africa" by H Matfess, T Lyons in the Routledge Handbook of Proxy Wars states: A grievance narrative that claimed systematic discrimination against Amhara – sometimes labeled the “Amhara genocide” – used the Welkait issue as one of its rallying cries Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I am confident that removing the fake/hoax template was justified. But given that I am unfamiliar with the topic I have no opinion on questions of WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH, WP:ADVOCATE, etc. That, combined with the fact that the article doesn't have many editors, is why I posted here. The editor who raised the hoax allegation has now proposed merging the article into another article about violence in Ethiopia, but I have no opinion on whether that would be justified. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Random person no 362478479, I understand, this topic is extremely contentious; not only in this platform but also among policy makers or international bodies. It is highly politicized. As one of the renowned genocide scholars often say, bodies have to pile up before gaining consensus by all, if the whole world agrees on the acknowledgment of a certain case by the whole world, ever. I am not talking about those make destructive edits deliberately for any specific reason here. Petra0922 (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia, what do you mean by only 18 sources? Very confusing. You added misleading opinions here. If you are an SME of the Genocide topic, then the examples you listed here (“they said that was said and so on..”.) are completely irrelevant. It is important to focus and refer to the given international scholarly, UN, and other similar sources that discuss the elements of genocidal crimes (in the exact same way as the 1948 genocide convention)- by the way are given in the article. Also, let us not forget that the genocide acknowledgment 100% by the whole world is largely political but it doesn’t give the right some one randomly to get up and deny published and actual facts on the ground. The Wikipedia notability guidelines specifically discussed here, and the genocide crimes are discussed in detail aligning with the UN genocide convention and the Rome statute. I can see that you are familiar about the Tigray war which started in 2020 that involves multiple warring parties, however the article is discussing the Amhara genocide that began from 1990s and still ongoing. To make this thread relevant, considering the contentious nature of the genocide topic, we really need to discuss examples of the sources and contents in question. Opinions don’t help us come to a consensus for genocide discussions. BTW, [14] is another recent source that was published by the International Association of Genocide Scholars venue at the University of Barcelona at the Law department in July 14 (a paper abstract). Because of the importance of the Amhara genocide topic, a full "Genocide in Ethipia" session was created by the organizers who happen to be scholars and legal experts. Petra0922 (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Socialist Alternative (Australia)

This is concerning a section in the article in which the political organisation was deregistered as a student club by a student union. In general the article contains a lot of citations from the political organisation itself, often used to portray the organisation in a favourable light rather than a NPOV light which is highly problematic. Please see below for a description of the dispute.

An editor introduced material about an incident concerning the political organisation at a university using citations from the political origination itself to justify a position favourable to the political organisation and in the process introduced highly biased language such as "opposing Israeli war crimes and occupation" into the article as fact. I edited the material to remove the obviously unreliable source, bring in a reliable source and bring in a neutral point of view to the content. An IP editor who only has two edits (both of which are the article) has mysteriously shown up and reverted back to the original POV material containing unreliable sources as citations with a highly politicised and biased message towards myself in the edit summary. I have reverted advising in the edit summary that they need to refer to WP:RS and WP:NPOV and that they should take this to talk. I have advised them if they continued war that they will find themselves on a noticeboard (I'm now following through on that). I have then started a new topic in the articles talk page concerning the talk page, making sure to tag both users. Rather than engaging in any discussion the IP user has again reverted making only slight changes and again directing highly politicised and biased messages towards myself in the edit summary.

Can I get the eyes of more experienced editors/administrators on this material and on this article in general which in large sections reads as propaganda for the political organisation. AlanS^talk 07:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull

Additional participation at Talk:Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull#Premier of Victoria and Victorian government response to Keen-Minshull rally would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

List of left-wing terrorist attacks

I wanted to bring List of left-wing terrorist attacks to other editors attention, I've removed several instances where sources do not clearly identify the event listed as either a terrorist attack or left-wing. Could use some more eyes. It also looks like an editor recently added several events based on their original research that "If white supremacy is a right-wing belief, than [black supremacy] is left-wing". ––FormalDude (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

don't mind me, I'm just over here banging my head into a wall repeatedly -- asilvering (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

anyway, editors on the article also think that "anti-war" is left wing by definition, along with both anti-religion and, somehow, pro-any-religion-that-isn't-Christian. Are many of these attacks left-wing? Sure. Are all of them? Obviously not. -- asilvering (talk) 05:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This might be an article where source quotations are helpful, to make it clear exactly where in the source it supports that it's one of the listed left-wing ideologies and that it's terrorism. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:19, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that will help, honestly. I've altered the lead to remove the ones that appeared to be linked to the most spurious ones (anti-religion, eco-terrorism, etc) and I'll cross my fingers, but I think this will always be vulnerable to "I'm a conservative and I disagree with this, so it's left-wing" or "this is something liberals like so it must be left-wing" kind of editing. -- asilvering (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure the article even needs to exist, given that we already have Left-wing terrorism § History. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really excited about it either. But since utterly absurd topics like List of autobiographies can survive an AfD, well... -- asilvering (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude, that page doesn't need to exist either. It's a POV fork of Political terrorism and there was AfD discussion regarding it and the consensus was a delete. AlanS^talk 08:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Note: I've just listed Left-wing terrorism at AfD given it was previously discussed there and there was strong consensus for a delete last time. AlanS^talk 08:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude is this perhaps a good candidate for a AfD? Seems like a POV fork from List of terrorist incidents to me. If you start an AfD I'm sure you'll get plenty of people seconding your recommendation. AlanS^talk 08:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

In that case you might want to nominate List of terrorist incidents for deletion as well. Left-wing terrorism is merely a category of terrorism used by terrorism experts and most lists are divided by type of attack, in this case left-wing terrorism.

I noticed that you nominated both Left-wing terrorism and Right-wing terrorism for deletion. Do you plan to AfD the other articles about different types of political terrorism? TFD (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to run with the presumption that all other articles about different types of political terrorism are POV forks if that's your question. AlanS^talk 10:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces, I've just had a brief read of Christian Terrorism and Islamic Terrorism and both appear to be hot messes of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. If my nominations for Left-wing terrorism and Right-wing terrorism are successful at AfD, I don't see why those two shouldn't be considered for the same treatment. I'll see how consensus plays out. It wouldn't surprise me if the same issues were present on article to do with Jewish, Sikh and Hindu terrorism. AlanS^talk 11:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Before you move ahead, could you please read "Typologies of Terrorism," which briefly explains the basic types of modern politically motivated terrorism used in the literature on terrorism: nationalist, religious, state-sponsored, left wing, right wing, and anarchist. (Aubrey, Stefan M)

The basis for creating articles is notability, whether or not they have a body of literature in reliable sources. IOW, can you find books and articles about left wing, right wing, Islamic terrorism, etc.

The fact that we may disagree with the classifications used by terrorism experts and law enforcement doesn't justify deletion. Instead, we should include reliable sources that criticize them. For example, scientific racism is no longer given any legitimacy in reliable sources, but there is an article about it because it is a notaable topic.

Incidentally, if you think articles are biased, you can make improvements to them. TFD (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll see how the Left-wing terrorism and Right-wing terrorism AfDs progress before I consider anything else. AlanS^talk 13:28, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude, I've listed the article at AfD. You maybe interested. AlanS^talk 09:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems to have some distinct OR and BLP issues. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Apparently anything can be left-wing when you want it to be. AlanS^talk 10:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• The problem with political labels like “left-wing” and “right-wing” is that there is no clear definition. A viewpoint that is considered “left-wing” in one country might well be considered “centrist”, or even “right-wing” in another. And (of course) no one thinks that their viewpoints are out on the wings. Blueboar (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Left-wing terrorists absolutely believe their views are out on the wings. They are quite happy to describe themselves as Marxists, socialists, etc, because they are out doing left-wing terrorism to further those goals. -- asilvering (talk) 12:24, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  "Left-wing" exists more as a pejorative than as a viable description of political movements. This article should be tossed to AFD. Zaathras (talk) 13:12, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  It is now in AfD. see my comments above. AlanS^talk 13:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  So why does the The Left, which is a political group in the European Parliament call itself that? Why did it used to call itself the European United Left/Nordic Green Left? Why do its constituent parties have names such as European Anti-Capitalist Left, the Left Socialist Party (Belgium), the International Socialist Left, The Left (Luxembourg) the Left Bloc (Portugal), the Alternative Left, the United Left (Spain) or the United and Alternative Left?

  I think the problem is that American conservatives use the term, along with socialist, as a slur for the Democrats, who aren't left-wing or socialist. It doesn't mean that that the Left and socialists don't exist. TFD (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, Zaathras's comment wasn't exactly worded very well. "Left-wing" is not a pejorative. It can be a polemic device when used by right-wingers, but it's not a pejorative by itself. Not even "far-left" is a pejorative, but it serves to marginalize movements as "far" and therefore out of the overton window. –Vipz (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  My comment was worded exactly as I meant to word it, kindly keep the meta-analysis to yourself. Zaathras (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Zaathras: I shall kindly keep my meta-analysis to myself, but you don't need to, got it. –Vipz (talk) 06:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• I assume the heavy European use dates back to the aftermath of the storming of the Bastille where the supporters of the king sat on the right and vice-versa. I don't think it directly translates into American politics. The far-left barely exists in the US. As for a pejorative, Trump just called Dems communist fascists. Perhaps he was hit with a Horseshoe. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I think left wing/right wing as something that wasn't commonly used in the USA that has crossed over as a polite-seeming way to insult people, so it only appears neutral. I think lists by topic, like "eco-terrorism" is much more useful and more likely to be something people can agree on definitions for. For instance, I tend to hear any kind of nationalism as "right wing" ideology and this list is full of nationalist examples. Denaar (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the issue is as simple as a WP:OR and MOS:LABEL violation. We don't have to discuss semantics, or what it really means to be "left-wing" or "leftist", etc. If it was a list of only events described by reliable sources as "left-wing terrorist attacks", there is no reason not to keep the list. However, it isn't; in many cases (as outlined above) it's one editor's judgement of what constitutes "terrorism" and "left-wing" motivations. Yue🌙 06:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

@Yue Well, the reason is that it won't likely stay that way without serious concerted effort to keep out the violations, though I suppose edit protection on the article would probably help a lot. -- asilvering (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss political ideologies. Slatersteven (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

• The problem I see with both these lists is that they are populated by events that are not called right-wing/left-wing terrorism in their articles. "Someone is killed, so it must be the opposing ideologies terrorism" and "Someone did something and beleives something that is not part of ones sides current ideology, so it must be the other sides terrorism" are both reductively stupid. There have been right-wing eco movements, and left-wing ethno-nationalists. Anything on either list would need to be explicitly stated as being left-wing or right-wing terrorism, and unless there are editors willing to strictly maintain the list they are quickly going to fill up with POV editing. Both are just massive timesinks, the List of terrorist incidents can list the stated purpose (if one exists) of the incidents. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:13, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed. You can see three or so of us trying to keep trimming it down, but it's an uphill battle and I personally don't really think it's worth the timesink. -- asilvering (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

  I applaud you efforts, but agree it's to much of a timesink. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Wouldn't that apply to any terrorist attack? Wikipedia articles are for example allowed to say that 9/11 is usually categorized as an Islamic terrorist attack. It's a useful description because it explains the motivation for the attack. We know for example it wasn't carried out in order to protest global warming.

  From a law enforcement standpoint it's useful because it tells them what type of people were likely to have carried out the attack. They would be looking for an organized groupb of Muslims with overseas connections, rather than an obviously deranged white supremacist who operated alone.

  TFD (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  My comments are in relation to editors opinion (OR) rather than what is stated in reliable sources. If reliable sources state that the 9/11 attacks were islamic terrorism, then it's fine for Wikipedia to state that as well. Many entries that were on the list were articles with no mention of "left-wing terroism" or "right-wing terrorism", but appear to be include because an editor thought they should be. The issue isn't that the list couldn't exist but that they fill up with OR due to POV editing. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• AFD on both articles (left-wing and right-wing) is absolutely appropriate. "List of terrorist attacks" has at least some reasonable objective metric for inclusion, as what is a terrorist attack is usually determined by officials of the country it happened in in the short-term, or is determined by academic analysis in the years that follow. But what is a "left-wing terrorist attack" or "right-wing terrorist attack" is highly subjective and are never good candidates for list articles. I think the broader articles on "Left-wing/Right-wing terrorism" are actually fine as summaries, and can include events that have been identified as academics as examples of the respective terrorism attacks, but we should not be trying to attempt to fully list them because we are going to get stuck in a world of WP-editor subjective determination. --Masem (t) 13:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it's subjective provided we use the definition in reliable sources and only include attacks that reliable lists categorize as left-wing terrorism. It becomes subjective when the criteria for inclusion is anything Wikipedia editors consider to be terrorism carried out by anyone they consider to be left-wing.

  Classifying terrorism by motivation is useful in determining who might be behind an attack. For example, investigators quickly determined that 9//11 was carried out by Islamic extremists rather than revolutionary socialists or neo-Nazis. Knowing this, they were able to profile the offenders as religious extremists with a high level of education and otherwise no psychological disorders, who were part of a larger conspiracy and were unlikely to claim responsibility. They knew they were Islamic terrorists because of the targets chosen, their willingness to die in the attacks and the high level of loss of human life. TFD (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  If we are talking "Islamic terrirism", that is far more objective because it starts on the basis that the terrorists had an Islamic bg (thats an objective measurement) and likely perpetuated the attacks under extreme Islamic principles. It doesn't rely on subjective labels. Masem (t) 15:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

• There is also an AfD for List of Islamist terrorist attacks (see [15]), which I support. I don't agree with using the term "Islamic terrorism" or "Islamist terrorism" in wikivoice, even if there are sources that are normally considered to be reliable that use the term. Numerous religions have had extremists who commit atrocities and terrorist attacks motivated or partly motivated by religious belief. Many such acts in Africa, Latin America and elsewhere in the period of colonialism were justified as a means to spread Christianity. But we don't use the term "Christian terrorism". Similarly, Biblical justification has been used by Israelis when committing horrific acts against Palestinians in order to establish and maintain the occupation. But we don't use the term "Jewish terrorism". AFAIK "Islamic/ist terrorism" is the only term in frequent use that implies a direct connection between a major religion and terrorism, and in that way slanders the vast majority of adherents of Islam, who abhor terrorism. Wikipedia should avoid the term, especially in view of the dangerous growth of Islamophobia in the US and Europe. NightHeron (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

  @NightHeron, actually you'd be surprised. There's articles for Jewish religious terrorism, Christian terrorism, Islamic terrorism and Hindu terrorism. I've already flagged with @The Four Deuces, that I consider them problematic and that I would see how my current AfD listings progress and then consider listing them also. I've just had a look at the Hindu one and it conflates nationalism of people that happen to be Hindu with Hindu terrorism, which is obviously problematic. I suspected I'd find original research of such nature before I looked at it. AlanS^talk 00:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• @AlanS, I am surprised; I didn't think of looking for such article titles. All of the article titles in your list seem bad, basically political spin terms used to denigrate the religion. I'd be surprised once again if there are unbiased RS that use such terms to categorize terrorist attacks (with the possible exception of Islamic terrorism, which unfortunately is a term sometimes used by people who should know better). If you find that an article in your list is well-sourced except for the title, then instead of AfD you might propose moving it to a new title (for example, from Jewish religious terrorism to Zionist extremist terrorism, which currently redirects to Zionist political violence). I'm very impressed with all the work you've been doing to deal with the problematic lists and articles relating to terrorism. NightHeron (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  It wouldn't surprise me if some of this articles were created in a tit for tat manner. As, I said I'll see how the listing in AfD go for left-wing terrorism and right-wing terrorism. If they don't succeed, then I it would probably be futile and disruptive to proceed with the ones I've just mentioned. The lists are no-brainers and they've obviously gotten a lot of support so far, but again I'll have to see how they go. AlanS^talk 00:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  If the main problems with these articles are the terminology and the OR and POV-pushing involved in the categorizing of terrorist attacks, then you might consider approaches that have an easier time gaining consensus than AfDs, such as moving to a different title, merging into a more general list or article on terrorism, or in the case of Jewish religious terrorism, merging into Zionist political violence. NightHeron (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  That's because HIndu terrorism, despite the name, isn't a form of religious terrorism but rather of ethnic/nationalist terrorism where religion forms a part of defining ethnicity. You could compare it to the Ku Klux Klan which was avowedly Protestant and anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic, but whose motivation was not religious. They opposed people who were different from them and wanted to marginalise them. Unlike religious extremists, they made no attempt to convert people of other religions. TFD (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  @The Four Deuces, I agree. The article however pushes a different narrative and I'm sure you would agree is highly problematic. AlanS^talk 02:02, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand your approach of starting a discussion thread here and requesting multiple article deletions. If I have a problem with an article about a notable topic (i.e., there's a wealth of literature about it in reliable sources), I make the necessary corrections. If I encounter opposition, I talk to them and only when it can't be resolved do I go to dispute resolution.

  You haven't even made clear by the way what you find wrong about these articles. I get the impression that your main objection is to the terminology used in reliable sources.

  A lot of editors have worked on these articles. Talk to them. TFD (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

  Calm down. I've not requested anything regarding those other articles as yet and I might not. AlanS^talk 02:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

• Note: the origin of this list is obviously this list by the user Alejandro_Basombrio/Empanada Mixta - who got blocked indefinitely after a series of problems [16] [17] + sockpuppet [18] by the admins User:Ingenuity and User:Yamla for "Clearly not here to build an encyclopedia". The author of the article "Michael Sieger" mostly copied that list. The other edits of the account fit the old accounts too (for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hotel_Corona_de_Arag%C3%B3n_fire&diff=next&oldid=1166401467). This clearly seems to be another sockpuppet. There's also a delete discussion where I will add the note, maybe it helps to evaluate the problem. --2A02:810B:10A0:634:7D8F:E8FA:1C3B:A4BC (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  SPI opened [19] here if anyone has other evidence they would like to add. -- asilvering (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

NPOV and OR problems with lists generally

The general issue, of subjective categorization lists being breeding grounds for NPOV and OR violations, is a very broad and common one. I previously opened a discussion on this topic, but I think it may be helpful to raise it again here, as well as a slightly modified version of my original proposal; adding the following to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists:

Selection criteria for lists involving subjective categorization

To comply with core policies on neutrality and original research topics should only be included unqualified in a list involving subjective categorization, such as List of video games considered the best or List of massacres in France, if the view that the categorization applies is the view of the majority, substantiated with references to commonly accepted reference texts. If the view that the categorization applies is held by significant minority then the topic can be included alongside appropriate qualification that makes it clear that its inclusion is not the majority view.

This is particularly important when the category is covered by MOS:PUFFERY or MOS:LABEL.

Further word-smithing may be needed; the intent of if the view that the categorization applies is the view of the majority, substantiated with references to commonly accepted reference texts is to make it clear that WP:DUE applies, but the exact wording to do so likely needs further work. BilledMammal (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a step in the right direction. DFlhb (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I would only create a list with a finite population, for example, member states of the European union. For something like lists of terrorist attacks, I would either have a list of attacks that had articles or copy a list from a reliable source. Anything else invites OR in what meets the criteria and lack of neutrality in deciding what to include or exclude.

I would also avoid lists where the criteria for inclusion is ambiguous, such as "list of liberal democracies." TFD (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

For something like lists of terrorist attacks, I would either have a list of attacks that had articles or copy a list from a reliable source.

The issue with the first part of that is that it still invites OR as to what meets the criteria; for example, List of massacres in France includes many items that have articles on enwiki, but whose articles don't even include the word "massacre", let alone establish that it is the view of the majority that a massacre occurred.

The second works better, but I think it would lead to NPOV issues as it puts undue weight on a single source. BilledMammal (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sundown town

The input of others familiar with WP:UNDUE and "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" would be appreciated at Talk:Sundown town#"Try That in a Small Town". In a nutshell, there is a content dispute about whether the song "Try That in a Small Town" is about a sundown town. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Very frustrating to see @Magnolia677 put a thumb on the scale by misrepresenting the nature of the dispute. The question is whether to include reliably sourced material describing criticism of the song as being about a sundown town—not about whether that criticism is correct. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:19, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Swati Tribe

I request admins to take necessary actions against those two users who are spreading vandalism on this page. Swati is a Pashtun tribe which everybody knows and It was written for the years with reference but I am noticing from the last 7 months A user named Sutyarashi is trying to prove Swatis of Dardic origin i.e Of Indian Origin. This user revert any edit immediately on this page however he is even not from Pakistan. He looks like a paid agent as he remain active whole day with one another too. They are just trying to distort history. I did debate with him on his talk page which Admins can read, and I defeated him in debate. He was writing Swatis as Dardic without any reference, However the reference which he provided and was sure on that was debating with me mentioned that Swatis are arab on the same page but he changed words to distort history. I therefore request Wikipedia admins to take actions as we have other things to do. Khan Of Naral (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

As I am presumably one of the users referred to above (as per the corresponding notice template), I would just like to point out that during the edit warring I left two edit summaries requesting the user to obtain consensus on the article talk page regarding removal of referenced content. To no avail ("Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion.") --Technopat (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see the main feature there is Khan of Naral edit-warring. DeCausa (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Khan Of Naral has been blocked as a sockpuppet by Bbb23: User_talk:Khan_Of_Naral#Blocked_as_a_sockpuppet -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

2023 Haryana riots

The article 2023 Haryana riots was written by Plumeater2. With all due respect, I don't find the user to be following WP:NPOV when writing this article, but that maybe because they are new (or maybe I'm mistaken). Anyway, this article would benefit from additional eyes. Currently, it is orphaned so the community doesn't know about it. With this message, I'm hoping to attract more community attention.VR _talk 18:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States

This AfD concerns a typical allegation of a WP:POVFORK that fails WP:SYNTH. However, a user at the discussion also alleged that the template Template:Sex offender registries in the United States, and the articles linked from it, are also non-neutral in contents.

The articles that use this template are:

The articles linked from the template are:

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm the user that expressed that concern. I have not fully read all of the articles and I can't say which, if any, are POV. What I can say is that the template pretty much only links to stories about problems with sex offender registries and why they need reform or elimination. So I think the template's collection appears POV in its curation.

I suggest getting some other eyes on this whole topic. There are several related articles at AfD:

• Articles for deletion/Movement to reform sex offender laws in the United States
• Articles for deletion/Illinois Voices for Reform
• Articles for deletion/Families Advocating an Intelligent Registry

It appears @ How I could just edit a wiki article has been going through articles on this topic.

In the United States, several states have genuine problems with over-reaching, constitutionally iffy sex offender laws. At the same time, Wikipedia recently had some issues with pedophilia-friendly editing coordinated off-wiki. It also had some vigilante, kill-all-the-pedophiles edits. This is not exactly the same thing but the topics are "adjacent".

I believe this needs a nuanced look.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 19:50, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

@A. B. I'm not seeing the issue here - yes, based on the above, it's a category that's tagged on a lot of pro-reform articles, but it's also on Megan's Law, Jessica's Law, and Smith v Doe, all articles describing the status quo. Seems neutral, and if not then it can be added to more pro-status quo articles.

The pedophile thing is IMHO a red herring. Based on my limited (but not non-existent) knowledge of the subject there are credible academic and civil liberties voices which have said these laws are unfair or inefficient. Although there's a certain attraction to lumping all the sex-laws-are-broken folks together, this is not like the attempts we've seen on WP to re-brand or justify child rape. There may be some overlap in the age-of-consent area, but I assume that's based on concerns about the effects of adding kids to registries for underage consensual activity. I haven't been through all the articles so maybe there's some stealth attempt to argue for reducing the consequences of child sex abuse but I haven't seen it.

As noted on the "movement" AfD @How_I_could_just_edit_a_wiki_article is indefinitely banned ATM so don't expect a lot more "looking through" from them. Oblivy (talk) 05:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 lab leak theory

The article claims that "most scientists" believe the zoonosis theory. This claim is not supported verbatim by any of the sources cited. This claim is an editorialised opinion and thus does not belong on the page. Despite repeated requests on the talk page, the editors have not agreed to change this. 2601:602:8200:4A10:5D7E:ADB:A176:35AA (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Without reviewing the sources, on the surface, I agree with your interpretation of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV - "Avoid the temptation to rephrase biased or opinion statements with weasel words, for example, "Many people think John Doe is the best baseball player." Which people? How many? ("Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey.)" Denaar (talk) 13:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources for "most scientists" would include [20], [21]. There's more too but that's clearly in sources. Masem (t) 14:10, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:Wikivoice: "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them." The first source doesn't provide what their source of that statement is. "AP states that most scientists..." would be attributing it to AP, rather then using Wikipedia's voice implying it's a fact, not an opinion. The second one mentions their source is US Government Intelligence report. Not sure that really applies as "most scientists" as that's suggesting people outside the intelligence community. Nature, a science journal, states it's a debate in the same year the AP article was published, enough that WHO is sponsoring an investigation: [22]. In a followup from 2023, the investigation is ongoing: [23] and it states "The World Health Organization has said that while zoonotic spillover remains the likeliest point of origin, the lab leak theory cannot be ruled out. WHO has said its investigation will continue until a definitive origin is identified." Describing the debate would not be using general terms like "scientists say" but attributing the opinions. It is much more neutral to say "While Who hasn't ruled it out, they still support that zoonotic spillover remains the likeliest point of origin" then use Wikivoice and say "Zoonotic spillover is the likeliest point of origin". Denaar (talk) 15:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not most scientists believe a certain explanation of some phenomenon, such as the origin of a pandemic, is a factual matter. If reliable sources say that most do, then that can be stated in wikivoice just like any other fact that's reliably sourced. NightHeron (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

But that's not what the WP guidelines say. It doesn't say "if sources use poor language like "most scientists say" then you can say it to. It says the opposite - and gives an example "Most people think" is acceptable only when supported by at least one published survey. Not "because a reliable source said so". In this case, the guideline is saying we can only say "most..." when we have a survey of scientists, that can be expanded in the body, which can be reviewed for it's methodology - not because a newspaper or two printed it. Denaar (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

You're misinterpreting. Wikipedia can and does make statements about what most scientists believe when appropriate. We have a section specifically on this WP:RS/AC in the reliable sources guideline. MrOllie (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep. There may be a better way to express academic consensus, but this isn't a bad one. XOR'easter (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not a neutral one though. Since many reliable sources clearly mention that no scientific consensus exists, it definitely comes across as an editorial decision to mention one and not the other. 2601:602:8200:4A10:F96A:153A:39E4:E45D (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, if the intention is to express scientific consensus, then the best way to do that is by explicitly mentioning scientific consensus. 2601:602:8200:4A10:F96A:153A:39E4:E45D (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources indicate that relevant experts are heavily represented by one side of the debate. As others have said, there may be more felicitous ways of saying this, but it's pretty clear from the sources that scientists who have direct expertise in this subject have made strong arguments as to why one hypothesis is favored over the other. jps (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

False. Multiple experts disagree with the claims of the small set of scientists you repeatedly cite. 2601:602:8200:4A10:E4B7:9C47:38D2:4C42 (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is going anywhere. Can someone please point me to what the next step should be? This is a clear violation of NPOV and no one out here wants to fix this. 2601:602:8200:4A10:E4B7:9C47:38D2:4C42 (talk) 07:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no reason to qualify the Associated Press saying "most scientists" with "According to the Associated Press...". That would be weasel wording. (For a more recent source saying "most scientists" verbatim, there's this.) XOR'easter (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Both sources are making the statement in their "factual record" voice, meaning it is not opinion and thus they do not need to be sourced. Expecting us to do more is pentantic and unnecessary. Masem (t) 00:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

But there are plenty of RSes that say there is no scientific consensus. These point of views get rejected by editors even when they are part of a peer reviewed commentary [1]. It should be easy to point to a review paper that states "most scientists" believe the zoonotic theory. That is the standard set for assessing consensus. It has not been reached so the editors seem to be using "most scientists" to get around that. In doing so they are selectively choosing sources that agree while leaving out sources that mention very clearly that there is no scientific consensus. This by definition is violation of NPOV. 2601:602:8200:4A10:CD43:1025:9B76:226B (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The thing is, "Most" is a weasel word - it's the kind of poor writing we shouldn't be copying, but watching out for. We have a template for it, a MOS about it, etc. That's why the bar is so high, if a reporter says "most people..." we have to assume it's a weasel word, not that the author found extensive research and forgot to reference it. If they have a source and reference it (like a survey), then we can start to consider it might not be a weasel word but accurate. Denaar (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd happily see it change to "the clear majority view amongst scientists" or similar, I'm sure it would be supported by sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

If many reliable sources say that then please do but plenty of reliable sources already say "no scientific consensus exists". I think that is a very reasonable viewpoint to add. Without adding that and while only keeping the "most scientists" part, the article violates NPOV I am afraid. 2601:602:8200:4A10:F96A:153A:39E4:E45D (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have mistaken neutrality and WP:NPOV. The Wikipedia policy is to neutrally reflect what is published by reliable sources, weighted by those sources. So if the majority of sources say one thing that is what appears on Wikipedia. There is no requirement to show both sides, in fact there is policy (WP:FALSEBALANCE) against doing so. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not true though. You are ignoring multiple reliable sources saying the counter.

"Prof van der Merwe believes that scientists had used articles in The Lancet and Nature Medicine to create a “false impression” that a natural spillover origin was scientific consensus." The Telegraph

"There is no consensus on the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

"To be clear, while some circumstantial evidence supports the lab leak theory, there is still no scientific consensus on whether COVID-19 emerged from a research facility, a wet market, or somewhere else." Reason

"The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. There are two leading hypotheses: that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape. Commissioners held diverse views about the relative probabilities of the two explanations, and both possibilities require further scientific investigation." The Lancet

"There is no scientific consensus on how the virus originated, but researchers believe it could have originated naturally or from an accident in a lab." Politifact

"While Worobey et al. (and their companion paper by Pekar et al. [41]) may dispute these findings, no scientific consensus can yet be presumed." Commentary in ASM mBio

The Australian's investigations writer Sharri Markson: "There is no scientific consensus that COVID-19 has a natural origin" The Australian 2601:602:8200:4A10:E4B7:9C47:38D2:4C42 (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

At least the first two are saying that someone disagrees, but I'm not saying everyone agrees but that it's the majority consenus the two are completely different. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

But why mention only "most scientists" while ignoring equally if not more important information that there is no scientific consensus? 2601:602:8200:4A10:89C5:33DC:5168:EB60 (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Your False Balance statement doesn't apply given some very prominent scientists find lab origin plausible/more likely - David Relman, Jesse Bloom, David Fisman, Nikolai Petrovsky, Raina MacIntyre, Bernard Roizman, Akiko Iwasaki, Marc Eloit, Richard Ebright, Scott Aaronson, Michael Lin, Angus Dalgleish, Roger Brent, Etienne Decroly, Nick Patterson, David Baltimore, Ian Lipkin, Milton Leitenberg, Scott Gottlieb, Deborah Birx, Roland Wiesendanger, Richard Muller, Brett Giroir, Robert Redfield, Simon Wain-Hobson, Neil Harrison, Steven Salzberg, Francois Balloux, Ravi Gupta, Stuart Newman, Virginie Courtier, Filippa Lentzos, Karol Sikora.

What credentials do Wikipedia editors have to disagree with so many prominent scientists? 2601:602:8200:4A10:89C5:33DC:5168:EB60 (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

if you’re going to call someone a scientist, please tell me where they did their PhD and what their dissertation was on, where they did their postdoc and what they specialise in. I’m highly sceptical and I don’t accept anything at face value. AlanS^talk 13:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:WEASEL says, "The examples above are not automatically weasel words....Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate [policy]." IOW it's fine to say that is what most scientists believe if there is a source for that statement. It would be wrong to include it if it is based on editors' personal judgment. TFD (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Which is exactly why such editorialization should not be allowed. Especially when multiple reliable sources say very clearly that no scientific consensus exists. This looks purely like an editorial choice and doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia especially given NPOV is non-negotiable [WP:NPOV]. 2601:602:8200:4A10:F96A:153A:39E4:E45D (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The claim that "no scientific consensus exists" is not really backed up by strong sourcing. jps (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Could you please explain how "most scientists" claim has a stronger sourcing than "no scientific consensus" claim?

"Prof van der Merwe believes that scientists had used articles in The Lancet and Nature Medicine to create a “false impression” that a natural spillover origin was scientific consensus." The Telegraph

"There is no consensus on the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

"To be clear, while some circumstantial evidence supports the lab leak theory, there is still no scientific consensus on whether COVID-19 emerged from a research facility, a wet market, or somewhere else." Reason

"The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. There are two leading hypotheses: that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape. Commissioners held diverse views about the relative probabilities of the two explanations, and both possibilities require further scientific investigation." The Lancet

"There is no scientific consensus on how the virus originated, but researchers believe it could have originated naturally or from an accident in a lab." Politifact

"While Worobey et al. (and their companion paper by Pekar et al. [41]) may dispute these findings, no scientific consensus can yet be presumed." Commentary in ASM mBio

The Australian's investigations writer Sharri Markson: "There is no scientific consensus that COVID-19 has a natural origin" The Australian 2601:602:8200:4A10:E4B7:9C47:38D2:4C42 (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

"most scientists" and "no scientific consensus exists" are not conflicting ideas. They can co-exist. Masem (t) 00:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Of course, but merely mentioning one but not the other is not a neutral point of view. 2601:602:8200:4A10:89C5:33DC:5168:EB60 (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect, please refer to WP:UNDUE. AlanS^talk 11:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

That's not a peer-reviewed research or review article, that's a piece of commentary by someone totally unqualified on the topic as he only has a master's (a recent (2022) one at that!), is not and doesn't seem to have ever been a research scientist, and got his degree in mathematical evolutionary bio of aging (not epidemiology or virology). JoelleJay (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It's a peer reviewed commentary as confirmed by the author himself [1]. If the editors of the Journal ASM mbio have deemed the arguments strong enough to be published, then I frankly don't see any merits to your argument that is purely based on appeal to authority. 2601:602:8200:4A10:F96A:153A:39E4:E45D (talk) 04:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

You're referencing a Twitter thread featuring DRASTIC personalities and other unqualified authors of COVID-19 lab leak papers as evidence something is a peer-reviewed reliable source? JoelleJay (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

David Bahry commentary versus the world is not exactly a convincing argument. I see no one has bothered to cite him yet. We can wait to see whether this monograph means a goddamn thing, but given what I have seen on social media, I wouldn't be holding my breath for his vindication. WP:CBALL, however, would have us not make any undue judgements about anything on the basis of this piece. jps (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

David Bahry is the author. I doubt he is lying about his own article being peer-reviewed?. 2601:602:8200:4A10:E4B7:9C47:38D2:4C42 (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:GEVAL is part of the WP:NPOV policy. Wikipedia is not to promote minority views as being equal to the scientific consensus. There also are many reasons for that consensus and it's not a mere belief, virology wasn't born in 2019 and SARS-CoV-2 was not the first coronavirus of concern. Even if there had been some lab leak event, it most likely would not have resulted in the pandemic and would have been a sample of SARS-CoV-2 taken from infected humans. There's no evidence to suggest that it's not a typical spillover and adaptation event and the popularization of rumors doesn't change that... —PaleoNeonate – 00:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

That no scientific consensus exists is not a minority view point though. Why is "most scientists" mentioned but "no scientific consensus exists" is not mentioned? Mentioning one without the other is misleading and gives the appearance of a consensus. And if no consensus exists, it is definitely an important point worth mentioning but isn't. 2601:602:8200:4A10:F96A:153A:39E4:E45D (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

The articles themselves should not be a collection of sources per WP:OVERCITE, but if you need more scientific sources to assess the consensus, the WP:NOLEAK essay (and some previous revisions of it in its history) may be useful. Of course, a consensus doesn't mean that there are no individual contrarians. The media can also be misled and entertain ideas for views. In relation to medicine, WP can try to do better per WP:BESTSOURCES, WP:MEDRS, etc. How is "most scientists" unconvincing? If the language can be clarified without falling into GEVAL, suggestions at the talk page are welcome. —PaleoNeonate - 19:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring these sources?

"Prof van der Merwe believes that scientists had used articles in The Lancet and Nature Medicine to create a “false impression” that a natural spillover origin was scientific consensus." The Telegraph

"There is no consensus on the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

"To be clear, while some circumstantial evidence supports the lab leak theory, there is still no scientific consensus on whether COVID-19 emerged from a research facility, a wet market, or somewhere else." Reason

"The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. There are two leading hypotheses: that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape. Commissioners held diverse views about the relative probabilities of the two explanations, and both possibilities require further scientific investigation." The Lancet

"There is no scientific consensus on how the virus originated, but researchers believe it could have originated naturally or from an accident in a lab." Politifact

"While Worobey et al. (and their companion paper by Pekar et al. [41]) may dispute these findings, no scientific consensus can yet be presumed." Commentary in ASM mBio

The Australian's investigations writer Sharri Markson: "There is no scientific consensus that COVID-19 has a natural origin" The Australian 2601:602:8200:4A10:E4B7:9C47:38D2:4C42 (talk) 07:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That "no scientific consensus exists" is a WP:VAGUEWAVE. It's much the same argument that has been made when other controversies about science have been referenced at this website. We have plenty of sources which explain why the relevant experts, save a fairly small number of contrarians, have evaluated the data in such a way to come to one particular conclusion. That's a fair assessment and the one our readers deserve to have presented to them. jps (talk) 15:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I won't engage with @jps further since he is clearly uninformed and his statements are demonstrably false. 2601:602:8200:4A10:E4B7:9C47:38D2:4C42 (talk) 07:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You need to strike that comment about other editors being "uniformed" immediately or you'll find yourself before AN/I. I'd also advise you against taking a position where you refuse to discuss content differences. AlanS^talk 08:09, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@jps said that the claim "no scientific consensus" is not backed by strong sourcing. I have provided evidence to show why that is an uninformed opinion. I am open to discussions on content differences but if one entirely ignores all reliably sourced claims contrary to one's position, then I don't see a point in having further discussions with them.

"Prof van der Merwe believes that scientists had used articles in The Lancet and Nature Medicine to create a “false impression” that a natural spillover origin was scientific consensus." The Telegraph

"There is no consensus on the origin of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2" The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

"To be clear, while some circumstantial evidence supports the lab leak theory, there is still no scientific consensus on whether COVID-19 emerged from a research facility, a wet market, or somewhere else." Reason

"The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2 remains unknown. There are two leading hypotheses: that the virus emerged as a zoonotic spillover from wildlife or a farm animal, possibly through a wet market, in a location that is still undetermined; or that the virus emerged from a research-related incident, during the field collection of viruses or through a laboratory-associated escape. Commissioners held diverse views about the relative probabilities of the two explanations, and both possibilities require further scientific investigation." The Lancet

"There is no scientific consensus on how the virus originated, but researchers believe it could have originated naturally or from an accident in a lab." Politifact

"While Worobey et al. (and their companion paper by Pekar et al. [41]) may dispute these findings, no scientific consensus can yet be presumed." Commentary in ASM mBio

The Australian's investigations writer Sharri Markson: "There is no scientific consensus that COVID-19 has a natural origin" The Australian

Simon Wain-Hobson: “[The group of scientists pushing the claim of natural origin] want to show that virology is not responsible [for causing the pandemic]. That is their agenda.” Vanity Fair 2601:602:8200:4A10:41F3:FF5E:40AF:8EF3 (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

People need to give up this conspiracy theory nonsense. Unless they want to go with some deep state conspiracy to double down on their conspiracy, the CIA have said it didn't happen. AlanS^talk 02:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

CIA have not said that though. CIA has taken no side on this. You are citing something that is false.

And DoE and FBI both lean towards a lab origin. I won't engage with you further since you are saying things that are not true. 2601:602:8200:4A10:E4B7:9C47:38D2:4C42 (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

From the article I linked "The combined powers of the world’s most expansive intelligence apparatus could turn up no evidence the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) had SARS-CoV-2, nor its progenitor, nor a backbone on which it could have been engineered, before the pandemic broke out. Nor could they find any evidence of a biosafety incident." The intelligence apparatus being referred to are the CIA and the FBI. you need to strike your accusation that I'm a liar immediately or you'll find yourself before AN/I. AlanS^talk 07:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

You are conflating absence of evidence for evidence of absence.

Maybe you should not post false statements like "CIA has said that it didn't happen" if you don't want to be called out for it. 2601:602:8200:4A10:41F3:FF5E:40AF:8EF3 (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Seeing an absence of evidence to support the lab leak theory and several reasons for a probable zoonotic origin, it is no wonder that most epidemiologists believe that a zoonotic origin is far more likely than that it came from a lab. NightHeron (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

That's just an opinion not backed by any poll though. Why not mention that no scientific consensus exists despite being mentioned by multiple reliable sources? 2601:602:8200:4A10:89C5:33DC:5168:EB60 (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Some of the scientists that find lab origin plausible/more likely include - David Relman, Jesse Bloom, David Fisman, Nikolai Petrovsky, Raina MacIntyre, Bernard Roizman, Akiko Iwasaki, Marc Eloit, Richard Ebright, Scott Aaronson, Michael Lin, Angus Dalgleish, Roger Brent, Etienne Decroly, Nick Patterson, David Baltimore, Ian Lipkin, Milton Leitenberg, Scott Gottlieb, Deborah Birx, Roland Wiesendanger, Richard Muller, Brett Giroir, Robert Redfield, Simon Wain-Hobson, Neil Harrison, Steven Salzberg, Francois Balloux, Ravi Gupta, Stuart Newman, Virginie Courtier, Filippa Lentzos, Karol Sikora. 2601:602:8200:4A10:89C5:33DC:5168:EB60 (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If you’re going to call someone a scientist, please tell me where they did their PhD and what their dissertation was on, where they did their postdoc and what they specialise in. I’m highly sceptical and I don’t accept anything at face value. AlanS^talk 13:13, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I'd advise you to strike that false accusation. The only place in this conversation where the exact wording "CIA has said that it didn't happen" appears is what you just wrote. AlanS^talk 00:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@AlanS, a minor difference in tense (original: "CIA have said it didn't happen", IP wrote "has") doesn't really make it a "false accusation". Schazjmd (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@Schazjmd, my correction. However they did say "You are citing something that is false.

And DoE and FBI both lean towards a lab origin. I won't engage with you further since you are saying things that are not true". They were literally calling me a liar. They need to recant that by striking their comment. They have also called others "uninformed". AlanS^talk 14:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Putting aside whether what you said is accurate (what I'll say next applies either way), I'm not inclined to put much weight behind what the US intelligence agencies say about this subject. It's not exactly a conspiracy theory to say that the US government often has a competitor (if not outright hostile) mindset towards China, and there may or may not even be good reasons for that, but it drags down their objectivity on this matter. I would place the blame for continuing popular belief in a "lab leak theory" more squarely on the press, who have long had a mixed relationship towards scientific fact, than US intelligence agencies however. VintageVernacular (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

That's just not true. Many scientists disagree with the shallow consensus that is often pushed. Some of the scientists that find lab origin plausible/more likely include - David Relman, Jesse Bloom, David Fisman, Nikolai Petrovsky, Raina MacIntyre, Bernard Roizman, Akiko Iwasaki, Marc Eloit, Richard Ebright, Scott Aaronson, Michael Lin, Angus Dalgleish, Roger Brent, Etienne Decroly, Nick Patterson, David Baltimore, Ian Lipkin, Milton Leitenberg, Scott Gottlieb, Deborah Birx, Roland Wiesendanger, Richard Muller, Brett Giroir, Robert Redfield, Simon Wain-Hobson, Neil Harrison, Steven Salzberg, Francois Balloux, Ravi Gupta, Stuart Newman, Virginie Courtier, Filippa Lentzos, Karol Sikora. 2601:602:8200:4A10:89C5:33DC:5168:EB60 (talk) 07:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

If you’re going to call someone a scientist, please tell me where they did their PhD and what their dissertation was on, where they did their postdoc and what they specialise in. I’m highly sceptical and I don’t accept anything at face value. AlanS^talk 13:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I base it on the fact that: "After May 2021, some media organizations softened previous language that described the laboratory leak theory as 'debunked' or a 'conspiracy theory'. However, the prevailing scientific view remained that while an accidental leak was possible, it was highly unlikely." My perception was this "softening" in the press caused the shift towards a false balance debate in the non-expert consciousness, since the news media had failed to consistently communicate the difference in perceived probability for either scenario that was communicated by scientific institutions. One can practically always find and list off experts who disagree with a scientific consensus, no matter the topic. VintageVernacular (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Thus the difference between possibility and probability. Many things are possible, not as many probable. AlanS^talk 01:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I've certainly found the discussion above confusing. Consensus is a much stronger thing than having a majority of scientists thinking something is probably true. Consensus is the sort of thing that they are pretty certain about and that the major institutions can stand behind. That the majoriy of people in the area think it probaby started in the marked from animals is evident from the citations, but that there is no consensus that that is what actually happened is also true, it is possible it started in a lab. Unfortunately China has not made it easy to be very clear on the matter - but that does not mean the conspiracy theorists are right! The problem for Wikipedia is how to just say something simple when people have this inane idea that scientists have to have clear beliefs like in some religion rather than just tending one way or the other until there is clear evidence and it has been well checked. NadVolum (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Lots of things are possible, that does not mean that they are remotely probable. It's entirely possible human life on earth started as a consequence of aliens putting us here. Is it probable? NO. The scientific weight for evolution by natural selection is crushing. WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE apply in regards to these sorts of conspiracies. AlanS^talk 01:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

What gives Wikipedia editors the right to decide whether this is a fringe theory when multiple well-established scientists disagree with them?

Some of the scientists that find lab origin plausible/more likely include - David Relman, Jesse Bloom, David Fisman, Nikolai Petrovsky, Raina MacIntyre, Bernard Roizman, Akiko Iwasaki, Marc Eloit, Richard Ebright, Scott Aaronson, Michael Lin, Angus Dalgleish, Roger Brent, Etienne Decroly, Nick Patterson, David Baltimore, Ian Lipkin, Milton Leitenberg, Scott Gottlieb, Deborah Birx, Roland Wiesendanger, Richard Muller, Brett Giroir, Robert Redfield, Simon Wain-Hobson, Neil Harrison, Steven Salzberg, Francois Balloux, Ravi Gupta, Stuart Newman, Virginie Courtier, Filippa Lentzos, Karol Sikora. 2601:602:8200:4A10:89C5:33DC:5168:EB60 (talk) 07:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

How many of these well-established scientists are epidemiologists, i.e., subject experts? And how long is the list of well-established epidemiologists worldwide who consider the lab leak theory to be highly unlikely? NightHeron (talk) 08:17, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I exist outside the US where this discussion is nowhere near as polarised as it is in the US and in the rest of the world we don’t have the politicisation of medical science anywhere approaching what happens in the US. Most of outside the US look at debates like this and we shake our heads in disbelief.

Ps, if you’re going to call someone a scientist, please tell me where they did their PhD and what their dissertation was on, where they did their postdoc and what they specialise in. I’m highly sceptical and I don’t accept anything at face value. AlanS^talk 11:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps this debate needs to be rephrased not in terms of what scientists believe but what epidemiologists believe. I don’t care what Joe the orthopaedic surgeon believes about the origins COVID.AlanS^talk 12:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the article is fine. It quite rightly points out that the strong evidence for it not being caused by a lab leak and that most scientists involved with the expertise to know consider a natural origin as being a lot more probable. However the WHO doesn't say there is a consensus nor do I think any other large scientific organization has nor has it even been asserted in a scholarly work so we can't start slapping fringe or pseudoscience or suchlike labels on it. NadVolum (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

"Most Scientists" is weasel words unless it's in the context of "most scientists in this survery..." real data we can look at. I thought Who's current statement is that the Zoonic option is most likely, and lab leak unlikely, and there is no solid proof for either to be completely definitive? This is my understanding of where we are: [24] "As stated above, the US intelligence community has concluded that both the main theories—animal spillover at a wet market and laboratory leak—remain plausible, with a sense of resignation about ever finding a definitive answer." Denaar (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I see no reasn to suppose the US intelligence community have any knowledge not availabe to anyone else about this and they have no expertise in the topic. All their statement does is not say untruths but increase FUD. Which is one of their skills. NadVolum (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, and if looking for decent sources about those who promote manufactured "controversy", there's a lot, WP also covers some of that. Making people, governments, the media and Wikipedia repeat the same things over and over is part of that... —PaleoNeonate – 09:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Bombing of Guernica

Does the article Bombing of Guernica belong in the categories "War crimes of the Spanish Civil War" and "Spanish Civil War massacres"? There's been some incipient edit warring over this and related topics touching on the definition of war crimes. See also e.g. recent history at United States war crimes and Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I figured it would be best to take it here and see if some uninvolved heads would like to take a look before it ends up at one of the drama boards. Generalrelative (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

After a quick look, "war crime" is only mentioned in the lede and does not have a cite to support it (and, in fact, the James S. Corum source cited near it contradicts the claim), while "massacre" only appears in the the Legacy section under sections related to artistic depictions of the event. Without doing a deeper source dive I'm not sure if we're missing mentions from scholars that can be added or if the content should be removed, but the article definitely needs some work. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. In fact, Corum does discuss the scholarly controversy before coming down on one side. Here are a few more scholarly sources calling the bombing of Guernica a "war crime" and/or presenting the question as a serious philosophical debate:

• Luke Cashman, "Guernica: Tactics or terror?", Agora (2021): [25]
• Katherine O. Stafford, "Archeology of an Icon: Picasso’s Guernica and Spanish Democracy", Narrating War in Peace (2015): [26]
• Ronald C. Kramer, "From Guernica to Hiroshima to Baghdad: the normalization of the terror bombing of civilians", State Crime in the Global Age (2013): [27] (There are several other pieces by the same author as well, arguing similar points.)
• Nikola Lusk, "Crimes Against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice", University of Queensland Law Journal (2001): [28]

And here are a few sources calling it a "massacre":

• Herbert Southworth, Guernica! Guernica! A Study of a Journalism, Diplomacy, Propaganda, and History (2021): [29]
• Jordi Xifra and Robert L. Heath, "Publicizing atrocity and legitimizing outrage: Picasso’s Guernica", Public Relations Review (2018): [30]
• Valérie Auclair, "Guernica de Picasso. La masacre en el taller y el compromiso político", Archivo de los Filmoteca (2010): [31]

There are plenty of high-quality journalistic sources for these terms too, but I'll stick to scholarly ones for now. These can definitely be added to the article. Generalrelative (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I am no specialist, but as far as I know there is no scholarly consensus on whether the bombing was a war crime or not. Those arguing that despite appearances it was not, argue that the Rentería Bridge was strategically important and a legitimate military target (despite the fact that the bombers used in the attack were unable to accurately target such a small bridge and the bridge was not hit) and that Guernica was technically not an open city. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Without looking at the specific case, I would oppose calling anything a "war crime" or a "massacre" in wikivoice unless there is a rock solid academic consensus that this is how it should be described. If the classification is contentious, controversial, unsettled, or debatable, then Wikipedia should describe the dispute rather than participate in it. Ideally, using the term "war crime" in wikivoice should also involve some sort of conviction, as is the standard for crimes in other contexts. I also wonder whether we should have categories of specific war crimes or massacres at all. There's a good reason we don't have Category:Dictators or Category:Terrorists. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Irreversible Damage

Hi everyone. There's a discussion at Talk:Irreversible Damage#ROGD in the body about this edit, which added the text:

The contentious concept of rapid-onset gender dysphoria, which Irreversible Damage endorses, was first proposed in a 2018 paper by Lisa Littman. ROGD is not recognized as a medical diagnosis by any major professional institution and is not backed by credible scientific evidence.

References

Discussion has stalled with unclear consensus, and more input would be appreciated. Neutrality isn't the only stated concern with the content, but I had to pick some noticeboard and this one seemed reasonable. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

A neutrality tag was just added to the article, so more respondents may be needed to help fix the issue or decide the tag is unneeded. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:19, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I swear the exact same editors were arguing just last week that comments made by Anderson in direct support of this book couldn't be added to Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy page as the book and the controversy weren't related. I'll recuse myself as I was involved in that discussion, but we desperately need uninvolved editors on these pages who are not interested in their own POV, but doing a fair analysis of what would be neutral. Denaar (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you're misremembering. There were two discussions in the last week about comments by Erica Anderson (1, 2), with the comments being sourced to an interview by Shrier that originally appeared on Bari Weiss' Substack. But neither of those discussions were about Shrier's book, or comments relating to Shrier's book. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know a lot about it. Is there a lot of reading to get across the subject matter? AlanS^talk 11:11, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC on whether appearing in a selective index is sufficient for notability of journals

Editors may be interested in this RfC at the essay NJOURNALS that seeks to clarify whether a journal being listed (or having ever been listed) in indices such as Scopus is sufficient for a standalone article. JoelleJay (talk) 14:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Zionism, race and genetics

Please see talk page of this article. There is a dispute as to whether its neutrality is disputed or not. Would benefit from un-involved editors’ thoughts. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "dispute over whether it's disputed". If someone has raised an issue, then it is disputed. Once consensus has been found on whether the issue is legitimate and a solution has been decided upon, then it is no longer disputed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "dispute over whether it's disputed" ← welcome to Wikipedia! Bon courage (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems we're having a dispute about whether there is a dispute about whether there is a dispute. On to the dramaboards!^[Humor] -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I dispute this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Careful, we're approaching infinite regress territory. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong venue— Should be raised at Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion. Folly Mox (talk) 02:51, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, the question of whether there should be POV tag on the page or not is just one of the issues under dispute. The talk page would greatly benefit from more eyes, as a small number of editors have reached something of an impasse. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

As cute as this thread is, obviously you can have a dispute over whether or not there is a dispute for the purposes of Wikipedia. If an editor disputes the fact that cows are not birds, that is not a dispute. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Allegations of stonewalling by editors, including BobFromBrockley, have been raised at ANI. Selfstudier (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Politics of Georgia (country)

Eyes would be useful on Politics of Georgia (country). Much of its text is unsourced (even that which is apparently sourced is often due to sources being added ad-hoc later without any modification to the existing text), sourced and unsourced text is being added and removed, including statements about various living persons. CMD (talk) 03:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The bits of recently added content I checked were problematic, and I did find BLP violations. I also think more input would be good. If I knew more about the subject, I'd feel more comfortable unilaterally restoring a prior version. Instead, I started a talk page section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Case of Chinese New Left

Since about a year ago, starting with Chinese Wikipedia, a user has repeatedly argued about the definition of Chinese New Left, claiming that China's New Left should be applied exclusively to the circa 2012 standard - which at the time being considered to be used only for a group of intellectuals in China.

After several rounds of debate with this user on the Chinese Wikipedia and citing numerous sources to prove that although the term was originally used to refer only to a group of intellectuals, the meaning of the term has been changing over the years, and to try to come to a consensus on the matter, this user still emphasized that there should be no space to discuss but the 2012 standard.

The debate there ended when several accounts of the user got blocked for perceived abuse, however, the flames then spread to English Wikipedia, where the same topic and the same debate has been going on for months now, just like the Chinese Wikipedia. Thus, I'm reporting it here. ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 03:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainian propaganda

Hatting WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I know is war, we know how attack and that the first victim of war is true, but way wikipedia become part of Ukrainian propaganda even going as far as whitewashing history. Like Ivan Mazepa Polish-Lithuanian nobelman of Ruthenian descent become Ukrainian, even the previous and next hetman was Ruthenian. Even in article Ukrainians you have written that its 20 century term, now propaganda is making him Ukrainian 3 centuries back, maybe because they have him on hryvna bill. Its go farther in other direction Lenin stop being Soviet, start being Russian. Really please take a look on this propaganda. Soon all Russian writters, poets, painters, composers start being Ukrainian and all Ukrainian criminals bandids would be no nation at all or maybe also Ukrainians. And also we get to know that Ukrainians didnt comite Volhynia genocide or maybe it been done by Russians? SS Galizien is also Russian propaganda and Ukrainians dont Nazi collaborate? This propaganda made me sick and again we all know who started the war, but don't fake history! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Currynistan (talk • contribs) 00:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC) here is the main propagandist that I spotted User:Lute88, retired and when war blast, edition by edition changing Ruthenians to Ukrainians, and naming all bad guys Russians, could you have more Soviet that Lenin, despite he also Jewish now he is Russian, Stalin still Soviet, but if Ukraine get a war with Georgia that might also change. Soon if that propaganda continues Dostoevsky, Gogol, Tolstoy, Chekhov gonna be stateless, that just wrote cyryllic with monkeys (infinite monkey theorem) :) Currynistan (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2023 (UTC) WP:NPA.--Aristophile (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC) what is personal here? Whats attacks you? Humour or facts? Just substantive few examples of your propaganda of only bad Russians and good Ukrainians even they Ruthenians. Once again war is bad, one country attack other, we all know which country it was, but stop twisting history because of that. How hidding SS Galizien and Volhynia genocide is helping case? This propaganda is sick. And Lute88 is hidding under alias Aristophile Currynistan (talk) 02:09, 11 August 2023 (UTC) This may be related to a thread I started 5 August 2023 on the Ivan Mazepa talk page = Ruthenian?. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:49, 11 August 2023 (UTC) This Currinistan is an obvious Leocadii sockpuppet.--Aristophile (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Nelson Bocaranda

(Aside: the WhoWroteThat tool is not working at this article)

Is this section of a BLP giving undue weight to the WikiLeak incident? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Three sources were used to build an entire section in a BLP. Only one independent secondary source mentions the incident: an article analyzing the danger to those leaked, with a passing mention of Bocaranda, as relates to the security/danger issue, rather than the actual incident. Two primary sources are a WikiLeaked cable, and Bocaranda's response to the Wikileak:

Secondary source:

• "AP review of released WikiLeaks documents raises doubts on scope of danger". Cleveland.com. Associated Press. 11 September 2011. Retrieved 8 August 2023.

  This is the only secondary source to surface so far that mentions Bocaranda, even after a ProQuest search.

Primary sources:

• "Wikileaks me cita en cable cifrado del embajador estadounidense" [Wikileaks quotes me in encrypted cable from the US ambassador]. Runrunes (in Spanish). 12 September 2011. Retrieved 8 August 2023.
• Colombian Guerrillas Reportedly Met with Grbv Officials in Caracas (Report). Embassy of the United States, Caracas. 20 November 2009.

(The alleged original of the cable is not accessible online, so the accuracy of the citation or its content can't be independently verified, but it is reproduced by Bocaranda in both English and Spanish in his response at Runrunes.)

A fourth source, since removed per BLP, was an opinion post by a Venezuelan government official (then Chavez's Foreign Minister, incorrectly cited as a "diplomat" as he went on to be Maduro's UN rep).

From the version originally added, I have removed the state media BLP vio, and added Bocaranda's response to the characterization (which was both misrepresented and largely missing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, there is also this 2019 article from Últimas Noticias, where this secondary source reports on Samuel Moncada describing Bocaranda's actions as "treason" for reporting the air force's capabilities to the United States. This article from another secondary source, Tal Cual, also speaks about Moncada's statements and elaborates on Bocaranda's communication with both the US and UK embassies while also providing another response from Bocaranda. WMrapids (talk) 04:15, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Últimas Noticias, a "pro-Maduro tabloid" according to The Guardian; WMrapids, you've been reminded scores of times now of the importance of the quality of sources on BLPs. That's not usable.
• Tal Cual (with not even the beginnings of an article on Wikipedia which fails to mention that Teodoro Petkoff was – long before Chavez – recognized as Venezuela's best known leftist politician, but I digress ... ) The Petkoff article states Moncada's claims, and then replays the response Bocaranda put on Runrunes and adds a joke of the fact that Bocaranda called himself a homegrown 007 after the Moncada claims.

So, that's one more source in addition to AP, so far = two sources in total for the Wikileaks incident, and one for the UK incident. I can't find a date on the Tal Cual article, but it does present both Moncada's claims (Chavez's foreign minister at the time) and Bocaranda's response (in detail), so it's fair and neutral in its writing and presentation (add that to the reliability evidence at WP:VENRS for both Tal Cual and Ultimas Noticias, which presents only Moncada's claim of "treason" and gives zero time to Bocaranda, who clearly hasn't been charged with treason in the intervening years). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Although Últimas Noticias may be "pro-Maduro", what makes it unreliable in its reporting? I might have saw one example, but that was possibly mentioned by an activist group. WMrapids (talk) 10:31, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to digress into that here, but the answer to your question of reliability is before your eyes on this very page with a very typical example: read the one-sided, sensational report from Ultimas Noticias, and then contrast that with Tal Cual, which presents both sides without sensationalism-- just the facts presented responsibly.

Further, the "pro-Maduro" description by The Guardian isn't the main issue; it's the "tabloid" (which is what Ultimas Noticias was well before it became "pro-Maduro").

I'm concerned that you aren't yet acknowledging or understanding the importance of sourcing in BLPs. Or perhaps you aren't reading these two sources in depth; if you don't speak Spanish, I can translate more of the articles for you.

The initial content you added appears to parrot this Venezuelanalysis article; see WP:RSP on that state propaganda source. The original content reads as if one source (a marginally related AP report) is used along with two primary sources and another non-RS blog, to attempt to replicate the contents of a Venezuelanalysis page. If you are taking your views from biased sources, it's going to be hard to "get it right" on a BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 12 August 2023 (UTC)